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
ok, so the suggestion being that my actual maxHR is possibly higher than 186, meaning that my 148avg would be a lower %age of the max. That would certainly make sense if the effort level is anything to go by.
AgentGinger, Give us some background information please.
Sorry, yes, some bio: I'm 34year old, male, 5'10'', 71kg. Only started running when i was 30, ran a few 10ks and a couple of HMs and a Marathon (brighton 2010). None of my times were particularly impressive and my "training" was very haphazard (basically running 5k about 3 times per week as fast as possible, and not really finding that I was getting any faster. PB 24:05).
For what it's worth PB for 10k = 0:55:00, HM = 2:00 and Marathon = 5:08
started running again in August with the intention of doing it "properly" this time, which means with consistency, and I think what needs most immediate attention is my aerobic fitness.
I like the idea of running around 70 - 75% MHR (which is what the HADD article seemed to suggest), and so at a comfortable pace below lactate threshold to ensure all the effort is aerobic and not anaerobic, which I guess is what most of my previous running has been, and why i'm still aerobically unfit.
However, assuming my MaxHR is "somewhere" in the region of 185-190 that would put a 70-70% run at 133-142 bpm, which I've recently demonstrated is almost impossible as my slowest possible jog still has my HR around 150. So I guess I'm asking whether continuing to run at this effort level, even given the higher than optimum HR, is going to encourage the same adaptations mentioned in the Hadd article? Will I develop aerobically from this incredibly slow jog that could still effectively be anaerobic? (having had no clinical LT test I can't say definitively what my LT is).
I should probably add that whilst the Hadd article seems to make sense, and he puts forward a good argument, his example (Joe) is in a different league to me, and his 145bpm run is still actually a run, wheras I don't seem to have a 145bpm option in my gears; it's either a brisk walk (100bpm) or an incredibly slow jog (150bpm).
Is this lack of a middle range evidence in itself of poor aerobic fitness? By just plugging away at the 150bpm runs will these come down to 140 and lower?
hope i'm explaining myself well, i appreciate it's a bit waffly
Just need a bit of background info to give a worthwhile response
sure, understood. I appreciate any suggestions you might have.
I don't think 193 is meant to be a substitute for your own MaxHR, that was simply Joe's maxHR in the example Hadd gave.
Also, even if mymax were 193, my problem is that I seem to be unable to train below 150bpm, so not sure if I'm actually training below the anaerobic threshold
IF YOUR HR MAX IS 193 OR HIGHER (EVEN IF OVER 200)
MAX 193.
How do you interpret that mace? Or brian?
Its difficult getting into this Hadd malarkey isn't it at first.
andy, the question is raised several posts down in this link as well though it doesn't really get a satisfactory answer - the suggestion is that there could be a mis-print / transposition error in the original document
http://can.milesplit.com/discussion/topics/90162/1
I pondered this briefly myself when i read it, couldn't think why at the time, but didn't dwell as it didn't affect me. He clearly says in the document there's an HRmax ceiling. Maybe above a certain HRmax, 70% is not squeezing the toothpaste enough and you have to go to a lower %. All rather confusing as there's no justification from HADD and a bit of a spanner in the works if your HR is significantly above 193 !!
Personally, i'd ignore this as it doesn't seem logical. If you take 70% of your true max and you can talk comfortably at that effort then that's what i'd use i think
so, leaving the maxHR issue to one side for a moment, what do you understand as being the impact of not being able to run below 150bpm? whatever my exact maxHR, that's likely to be above 70%, so does that mean i'm training below or above the LT?
Just been out for a 3.2 mile run and aimed for 149bpm (70% of max hr) ended with average of 146bpm and 7:38 ave pac.
Yesterday I did a 6.00mile run on basically same course but averaged 134bpm 8:51 pace. Cant believe though that going up by 12bpm I got a pace 73secs/mile faster. Clearly this shows I need more work at the lower hr doesn't it, to bring it more into line with the higher heart rates doesn't it?
Brian- cheers for that, i thought the first mile seemed quick for the HR that was showing. i would of gone round a 10mile loop if it wasn`t the marathon tomorrow, i have to say i wouldn`t describe
Dr D, that is the one thing that infuriates me about MHR. I can catagorically state that MHR at 220-age has been accurate for me for the last 25 years.
People (and not just yourself) dismiss 220-age as being inaapropiate and inaccurate but I always contend it must be accurate for some percentage of the population which happens to include me. If you know no better and cannot do a MHR test then that is a good starting point in my view.
Brian, I was nearer the canal than you but I always used to enjoy that 1/2 mile w/u before getting into the proper stuff. Running down the Leeds/Liverpool is better than down Gain Lane and the surrounding areas
Can't beat the aroma of fresh bread.
Wow the Chester weather looks ideal. 12' sunny with 2mph breeze.
Fantastic conditions for our 26.2ers.
Feeling envious now.
Rest day for me.
Hope to recover ASAP so as to get a fresh start with training now in view of not entering marathons again. The winner must of had wings doing a 2:25.
Has everyone Hadd a good run today wherever you are
I had to pull out of Chester ... taper turned into complete inactivity due to a prolonged spell of congestion
and coughing
. I kept hoping that it would pass but on Saturday morning I decided it just wasn't going to be 
. The bug has just about gone now, so time to put it behind me and concentrate on the Leeds Abbey Dash.
JB ... 220-age works pretty well for me too as it happens. However, while 220-age is a reasonable average for the population, there is a very broad spread around that average which means that there are a very large number of people for whom it does not work. It's like predicting your own house price based on the average house price of the country. As painful as it is, you need to get an estate agent in to get a meaningful value.
DrDan, Tough luck on Chester. Hope you get shut of the lurgy and have more luck at the AD.
Dr dan sorry to hear about you pulling out. I never finished either, only got to 19m at 3hour pace then walked to 20m. Lesson learned: dont start if youve been ill in the 2 weeks before.