Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
HADD training plan
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
mace, I'm thinking more in terms of sub 1:20
DrDan, Not a disaster you being poorly at this stage. Better you rest up than do too much. Good luck shaking it off.
I read the Hadd document and it got me wondering if thats whats needed to get me improving again. Tempted to give it a try very soon
I've never understood Hadd's 193 cutt-off. It doesn't affect me (my max is only 178), so I've never delved into why this is the case..
So basically then if your max HR is higher than Joe's then you automatically use 193 and therefore use all the same numbers as Joe does in the document. Could someone confirm I have this right or not please?
andy - as far as I am aware the 193 figure is taken from Joe and is not a Max limit. I came across some other threads where 200 was used in example of Aerobic work sessions in Phase 1 HADD training. Now I'm no expert, there are many more on this thread, but I guess the simple answer is your maxHR is your maxHR - not Joe's or anybody elses. If 210 is say your max then the %MaxHR training zones would read something like this for you:
I would not try to be too literal about it - 3bpm when it is that high is not going to make an awful lot of difference.
My MaxHr is 183 - if I take 15 - 20 beats off for my marathon pace it would be 163 - 168 - my training phases look something like this;
So if I want to run at 165 for a marathon - like you I would be up at the 90% mark and like you, I feel at the moment that may well be unachievable. HOWEVER the HADD system is a slow progress system - I have only been doing this for 5 weeks and my HR on my slow runs is at last looking more stable. I have read different comments on this thread and I think it was 'mace' that said his pace had improved by 2 minutes after 6 months. I'm a bit geeky where numbers are concerned and like it to be exact - but our bodies are not made like that. All I know is it is starting to work for me and the Base Phase of doing all the runs at 70% - 75% maxHR is a vital part of this. If that is too slow for you try your best 5K pace and add 2:30 / 3:00 mins as your starting pace for HADD training.
Anyone else please comment in case I have said anything wrong
AtD, Your HRmax can be derived. Have you any HR stats from races?
Sorry AtD, I get so used to talking to the coffin dodgers that I don't come numbers like yours. You are a young whipper snapper so I suppose anything is possible.
Have you an HRav from your marathon in April?
Brian- i dont actually have any HR info unfortunately from my running. i used to wear it on the bike but stopped wearing HR monitor for some reason 4yrs ago when i stopped cycling and started running. i read the document but have got a bit stuck on a couple of points.
hadd says- if your HRmax is 193 OR HIGHER, then the following applies:
HRmax: 193+ (even if over 200)
Best possible HRmarathon: 175-177 HRav.
to me this implies i should use 193 imho.
i ask this because recently (last 3months) i`ve been doing 100mpw but not really getting anywhere for my efforts
cheers in advance
Andy
Yes, I believe that is what Hadd says. Although I don't understand why Hadd had the 193 bpm cut-off, it is probably sensible to start with that as your max and so stick to "Joe's" training heart rates. The important thing in the ILTHR sessions is that you minimize drift ... so if you start off going at too low a heart rate, you'll be able to complete the 10 mile session without drift and then bump up the threshold for the next run. I think you'll soon find the correct sub-LT heart rate.
And I wouldn't worry about running more that 50 mpw ... that can only help. The difficult part for most people who start this is coping with the slow pace at 70% maxHR ... have you tried running at 135 bpm yet? If it turns out to be very slow, then 100 mpw might take a long time on your feet.
I've never done the Hadd test ... but, yes, if I did it would be at 130, 140, 145, 155 and 165, based on equivalent %maxHRs (but rounded off).
Dr Dan. Cheers for that answer by the way, Very helpfull.
i think i get it now *he says*.
Joe numbers are:
Maximum heart rate 193
marathon heart rate 175
easy daily running 145
Initial LTHR 155-160 (working up to 175)
Once i get my my marathon out the way and have recovered i plan on going onto this method of training so look forward to starting with a 2400m test. so i have something to compare as i hopefully improve. i`ll be following this thread for time being though. Thanks.
See you on Sunday then!
AtD (and DrDan) - The very best of luck on Sunday.
Ditto
Just occored to me that I'm not sure how best to set the Garmin up for this sort of stuff, Is it best to have a screen customised to show run tim (top of screen)
current HR (bottom left) and average HR (bottom right) or:
Do people use a different configuration?
Recently again I've added in some more hilly routes and now I have current pace, lap (mile) pace, current HR and lap (mile) HR so I can manage HR on hills. When I do a sub lt run I have another screen that shows laps run ( i do a certain number of 1.3M laps of a flatish circuit and i sometimes forget how many laps ive done
So to answer your question, it's what data you want to see on the run.
Just wanted another runners thoughts.
Yesterday was my first ever HR run and I had a screen set up with run time (on top) current hr (bottom left) and ave hr (bottom right) I didn't use distance because hadd goes by time instead and I suppose if enough time on feet is done then I'll get the miles anyway
AtD, Because of the nature of most of my runs (I run thru town to get on the canal), I display current lap (time), lap pace, lap HR and HR (current). I don't look at the readings whilst warming up thru town, dodging pedestrians and stopping at lights. I lap the garmin when I get to the canal (or some clear running). This is about a mile into the run, so I am (almost) warmed up, and the stats are now appropriate.
I've seldom used "time" although others on here will advocate it, such as Brian and of course HADD himself said to use time on feet. Of course i'm not saying i disagree with that, but i always know how far i'm going to run and how long roughly it will take me beforehand so although i indirectly go by time, i don't have it on my garmin screen. And i don't show distance because, as i say, i've already pre-planned how far i'm going to run.
So for me i only really fuss about HR but i like to know pace as well ... distance and time(ish) are decided before i head off.
I had a really weird run yesterday. Went out for a 5M recovery, stock run on the canal. I had hit a gym session pretty hard on Wed morning, so I was sore in the glutes, thighs, hips and groin. I ran and it felt ok once i had got the first couple of miles done. After the run, looked at the stats and the HR was incredibly low for the pace (7:57 / 115). HR of 115 is 61.8%. As I was running I felt that everything was great, the form felt just right even though there was some discomfort from the gym DOMS. The HR/Pace ratio is just about the best I have ever seen for that distance/terrain run, and I just couldn't fathom it.
When I spoke to a colleague later who is also a runner, she said that it would be because I was engaging muscles that I wouldn't normally. Thinking about it she was probably right as I was aware of the abs and lower abs because of the soreness. She says that her physio is always telling her that to run with good form and efficiently, we should engage the abs, glutes etc.
Discuss?
Mace & Brian wow i now realise how fortunate i am that i can go from my front gate rather than basically discount the first mile or thereabouts anyway.
i can see why you both have your watches set to show 4 different figures on 1 single screen. though that was a concern of mine when i was choosing wether or not to follow this Hadd malarkey because i wanted to keep things fairly simple so whereas before i would have Time, distance and average pace, today i had time, current HR and ave HR but i`m thinking of getting rid of the Time so i just have 2 numbers (current HR + Ave HR) i found today that it was quite hard keeping the HR at 135BPM, so while i learn the "feel" of this effort i may need to keep checking the watch.
Did others struggle to guage there effort when they first started?
Brian well done on sub 8 min miling at 61.8% of your max.
today on my 6 miler i only managed 8:50's at 62.9% (134BPM) is only my second ever HR run though. do you think i will be able to get sub 8 min miling for my same effort eventually?
AtD, Cheers.
You are well trained obviously. Marathon tuned, with 100mpw's behind you. But I daresay once you have recovered from the marathon (1 month from now), and you adopt the recipe of easy 70min runs, sub-lt 90min runs and 2hr long runs, your lactate threshold will increase and therefore you will run faster at all sub-lt levels. In other words all run/race distances 10miles and longer.
This type of training does not lend itself to shorter distance stuff. But it would be a great base to then build in VO2 and tempo work.
went out for a 30 min run and REALLY STRUGGLED to keep my HR under 150bpm.
Average HR was 148 over the 30 mins. Rose fairly quickly to high 140's, then I had to try going verrrrrrrrry slow to keep it under 150.
I don't know my exact MHR, but given i'm 34 I guess the 220-age would have it as 186, so that means I was averaging 79% of my maxHR, and my pace was 11:15 min miles, so I could barely go any slower. It was actually really hard keeping it above a walk. When I did stop to walk for 15 seconds (stuck behind a group of people) I was pretty much going the same speed (just with less vertical travel) but my HR dropped.
The effort level felt very low, and as I said, I'm not sure I could have run any slower, so how can I possibly train around 70% of maxHR (as I understand is the suggestion) to increase aerobic fitness. This would be ~130bpm, which I'd surpassed within about 3-4 mins of plodding.
if i continue to go out plodding at the same effort level/pace will this actually do me any good? I'm a bit confused about how I can benefit from this type of training if my HR won't stay low enough as such a snails pace?