It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I ended up with 2'49'09 mate. So I went from 6'17 avg for the first 8 miles out to 6'27ish as a total.
2'45 was always a little pie in the sky really. But I did East Hull 20 a few weeks prior - 5 miles at 7'20ish, and then I tried 15 at 6'15 pace. Managed it ok but I was full on racing for the last 3 really, in order to maintain that pace. But I kind of hoped (rather than expected) that come Mara day after a good taper etc I'd be able to do it. I tried, but realised it wasn't to be - hence the early decision to slow down.
Great time nevertheless! I could just about envisage hitting that pace for a HM one day.
So, if my HM pace matches your M pace, at roughly the same HRs and %maxHRs, how would that show up on the Hadd test? We can run roughly the same pace at the same HR, only you can last twice as long. In the test, I guess I'd get more fatigued in the earlier stages and so my pace for the final stages would drop off. Only one way to find out ... but first I need to heal ... roll on December.
Err, not 100% sure!
But if my understanding of the document/test process is right, the 4th rep HR (i.e. - 155bpm for me/us) = Mara pace. I certainly think that's right for Joe too.
For Joe his Mara HR is 175bpm, which equates to 170bpm for the test (allowing for a bit of drift). The idea (I think) is for Joe to train to get to 5'32 pace for the 170HR Rep during his test, as 5'32 = a sub-2'25 Mara which is his goal. He hits this on his 4th lot of testing, which is after 14 weeks of training.
Hence why I've made the assumption that the 4th rep HR is Mara HR/pace - that seems right for me, and pretty much right for Brian too based on his stats pre-Abingdon. So it will be interesting to see how you get on, and what the results are when you do the test yourself.
Ok guys happy hadding. I'll be off-line now for a week.
I look forward to seeing how you get on keeping your HR below 125bpm running up Mount Teide!!
In for a penny in for a pound
finally got myself a heart rate monitor ,and i have been out and done some tests.My resting heart rate is 50bpm and my max heart rate is 180bpm.
I'm gonna start the long process of getting myself aerobic fit using the hadds approach. I am after some training advice please , i am able to train 5 days a week .
At what heart rate should i do my longer runs at , i will be doing 3 of them and 2 at a slightly faster pace but not going into the LTH zone, as i want to build up some aerobic fitness first . I have my eye on the leicester HM next october so time is on my side to prepare, but i would like to throw in a couple of 10K's but that wouldnt be till june.
any advice and tips would be great
Hi there CW,
Have you checked out this document (below)?
For starters I would try sessions like those on p19...just pro rata the HR shown in the first table by a factor of your MHR divided by Joe's MHR. I think Joe is 193...its in there somewhere. Don't worry about resting heart rate for the time being. Also adjust the durations to fit your current capability.
Then you are good to make a start.
Its up to you when you do your first 2400 repeat mini test...I chose to do mine early so I'd (hopefully) I'd see a nice improvement next time around.
just been for an easy session and averaged 140 bpm , i couldnt of gone any slower as i would have been walking it was easy and it lasted an hour , is this right...........
If i go up another 10bpm for a slightly quicker run , will i still be in the aerobic zone?, as the easy pace was so slow , I know patience is the game , But does this go to prove how unfit i actually am
Hi Guys, New to this thread.... Glossed over the Hadd report on Friday night, and I was fairly interested in his opinion on how times stack up to distance's....
Just a quick brief about myself, back to running after a long layoff (13years, am currently 51), this year so far I've got my 5k time down to 19.59 from 24.06 (on different courses), and 10k from 45.22 to 44.00.... On Hadd's time scale, my 10k time shoulld be 41.40 for a 19.59 5k time.....
So yesterday I decided to bin the parkrun, and adopt Hadd's plan to work on my base's, always felt I wasn't doing enough and what I was doing was to fast, so here it goes..... Last night I attempted the 5 x 2400 session, but don't live anywhere near a track, so using a circuit of the local trading estate (2.3k).... Set my garmin up wrong and ended up running the hardest session ever, but it was brillent, perfect conditions, fireworks constantly going off and the smell of bonfires loved it.......
So guys looking forward to gleaning any info from you, and roll on the winter........
Hi to new Hadders!
In the (temporary) absence of JB, Brian and others I'll have a go at being both chummy and helpful.
Re. structure of training weeks - have a look at the posts in this thread...around page 3 I think I was asking similar questions to you guys (shape of the week including rest days) and getting some good help from some of the more experienced posters. Also look at the Hadd word document that I linked earlier for cw. Brian recommended that I stick to zones 1 and 2 for the first 6 weeks and that is what I am trying to do.
I've not seen a comprehensive Hadd "do this length of run at this intensity at this time of the day" prescription. Knowledge of some basics should enable you to piece together a programme that fits you. These basics include your maximum heart rate, roughly how many easy miles (or minutes) you can currently run and other bits and bobs from the word document (inc the typical weekly schedules in p19 I think).
Great to see some newbies to the thread, the more the merrier.
Chickadee, you have decided that your baseline running will be 75% of MHR (some say 70% but I think 75% is more realistic and indeed comfortable). Therefore in your first 6 weeks (or 5 if you wish) you do all your running at 136 or lower (average for the run), but not running at 150 for 80% of the time and then walking the last 20% to get a 136 AHR).
Phase 2 is when you look to put a couple of sessions, preferably longer runs, in at the next step up which will be 145-150 AHR but keeping the rest of the runs at 136AHR .
When I did my HADD test (week 1 of phase1) then I could not get to 150 and my AHR for that 2400m was 137 with a max of about 145.
As far as what to do in phase 1 then it really depends on what you are after. I wanted to use the easy running as a means of building up the base mileage and remember HADD is a foundation approach, not race specific speed work. I have done some double days, got my long run in but only ran between 5-6 days ever week. My totals for the 12 week period finishing yesterday which incorporated normal training and HADD Phase 1 is as follows
Normal 6 weeks Total 132 Average 22 longest run of 8 milestwice in that period
Hadd Ph 1 Total 223 Average 37 longest run13.5 miles (yesterday) and many over 8 miles.
Bluenose, looking for to seeing your Hadd test results. I am now starting phase 2 and will be doing a test tomorrow or Wednesday. I don't particularly anticipate any earth shattering news but as you can see from the figures above, I am pleased that my foundation work has improved and that is solely down to me doing HADD otherwise I would not have had the motivation and I would have been too tired to do some of the runs I have done if done at my normal pace.
CW, I reckon you should be doing base running at more like 135 than 140 average but that can be adjusted. As you get into it it does become easier to keep the same pace but at a lower HR
CW, yes it does become easier, almost natural. Just persevere.
My 13 mile run yesterday was at 8:54 average which now seem the norm for me. It was at 129 AHR rather than 125 planned but a few long inclines on the return make it quite hard to keep AHR down even if running at 10:30 pace.
I do wonder if I will ever be able to go quicker again .
PS I have done a lot of the 'junk' miles (4-6 mile runs) on the treadmill as I find it easier to maintain a stable HR that way.
One thing to remember is that Hadd was used to training pretty fast runners ... he said on the lets run forum ... "Probably the slowest runner I advise is a female who runs 22:00/5k, 45:00/10k and 3:30 marathon." Most of his runners were much faster.He also says ... "No more 11- or 10-min miles. I wouldn't inflict those on my worst enemy. "
For people running their easy sub-70% runs at these very slow paces, he has different advice ...
"Calculate your 5k PB pace per mile and add 3 mins. Go for a run at this pace and check your HR. If it is higher than I have advised for someone with your HRmax, then use this pace as your easy run pace. ... When you find that the pace at this low easy HR improves by 20secs/mile, drop down your easy HR by 5bpm and continue. Over time you are trying to run at a reasonable pace at the HR I advised initially for you."
chickadeee wrote (see)
(waves at Dr. Dan - seen you on the 2011 marathon thread)
Hello Chick! *waves*
The phrase reasonable pace is the question here. Dr D you make a good point re that HADD did cater for quicker runners in his example of Joe (and indeed himself) . My last 5K parkrun was 7:06 pace so my very slow pace on hills of ~10 min miles is still acceptable.
Chickadee it would be useful to see the results of your test as if you are looking at a 3:30 FM in the future then your times should be that far away from mile and possibly Dr Ds as well. HR might be different - I am 54 with a MHR of 170.
I also have a view that unless you are very fit then your legs are not strong enough to force out a MHR. On a hill test I would struggle to get above 160 as my legs would tire and yet when I was doing a lot of indoor rowing I could get to 164 in a 500m sprint and rowing is always about 5bpm lower than running in the same way that cycling is.
I always find maxHR tests much easier when a bit unfit ... the fitter you get, the harder you have to work to get the HR up, espcecially if you've been in base training. The art of the maxHR test is to build up the work rate at the correct rate ... too much too soon leads to lactate build up and fatigue.
What I would like to understand better is how to structure the training weeks. There isn't a proper schedule anywhere, is there? So you basically do a bunch of easy runs (135 bpm for me) plus 2 faster ones (145-150), right? How long should those faster ones be at the beginning? OK, at some point you are supposed to be able to do this for 10 miles with no drop in pace and no increase in HR but what sort of distance makes sense for the first weeks?
I was doing 6 days a week ... Sun long, Tues & Fri ILTHR (12M with 10.5 at target HR) and Sat off. Mon, Wed and Thurs were "filler" days (1 hour/7 miles).
Chick, for your maxHR, you should try doing your LSR at 127/128 and try to run your fillers at a similar HR if you can (but see my post above if the pace is just too slow to be classed as "running"). I found the two ILTHR sessions per week pretty tough - start these once you're comfortable with 50M per week ... it's vital that the fillers and LSR are kept as easy as possible so that these ILTHR sessions can be executed correctly. If you have a 1M circuit you can run, I'd recommend that for your ILTHR sessions. That way you can monitor your 1M time on each circuit and see whether your pace is dropping at the target sub-LT HR (148 bpm for you). After a warm up, do the first 1M at 138-140 ... second at 140-145 ... and then the 3rd at 148. Note the time for mile 3. Now keep at 148 bpm and ideally complete another 7M ... but if your 1M laps start slowing significantly at 148 bpm and its becoming very tough, it may be a sign to call it a day.
With two of these per week, I found that I quite quickly improved my ability to maintain a constant pace over the 10M ... I felt very fit! I did 8 sessions over a 1 month period and saw my average pace over the 10.5M go from 7:39/m to 7:13/m. My issue was that it was tough and, as I started to cycle and swim for a tri, it become too much to keep going. I only did 5 sessions over the next two months ... and then I was into more mara-specifi training. So, I'm keen to have another go over a longer period.
Just need to get running again first!
Johnny/Dr Dan cheers for great info/advice... Johnny as explained in earlier thread, cocked up on set up of garmin, as all data is useful here are the results, I did realise something was wrong during second effort, but thought sod it....
Aim 130HR - Start off HR 121 - 8.33mp - AHR 135 - HHR 149
Aim 140HR - Start off HR 94 - 7.15mp - AHR 147 - HHR 153
Aim 150HR - Start off HR 109 - 7.15mp - AHR 149 - HHR 154
Aim 160HR - Start off HR 105 - 7.23mp - AHR 149 - HHR 154
Aim 170HR - Start off HR 107 - 7.13mp - AHR 151 - HHR 157
I've included my start off/resting HR, as I've always believed the speed of recovery is a vital part of running... I also agree with a comment you made Johnny.... Its very differcult to get above the high 150's ... So today I set my garmin up properly and attempted test again.... I knew I would struggle to complete it, but needed to gather some info for route planning, plus only plan to be operating in the 130 - 140HR range over the next few weeks.... Results are...
Aim 130HR - Start off HR 102 - 8.19mp - AHR 130 - HHR 135
Aim 140HR - Start off HR 92 - 7.41mp - AHR 140 - HHR 146
Aim 150HR - Start off HR 99 - 7.15mp - AHR 146 - HHR 151
Dead..... So the trainning begins... Next test christmas....
Interesting test BN74. In the first test if there was no difference between pace at 140 and 150 that certainly suggests something was wrong.
What is your MHR? 220-51=169. I know that formula is poo-poohed as not being appropriate for everyone but it has always been very close for me from age 30 to age 50+
It does seem to me that unless you are supremely fit then the lowest band is too high. It is less than 2 min/mile off 5K PB pace and that is supposed to be very easy running. My lowest band is 5K pace plus 3:15 which is quite a big difference.
Can understand what your saying...... Before I got injuried in 97, I had been running most of my life, athletic's mainly, and had a bit of a natural ability.....
Since returning, my initial pace is fairly quick and comfortable (my 5k pb, I ran the first half in 9.30 and second half in 10.29, and all my races have all the same breakdown - hence Hadd training for stamia)... Slowing the first half doesn't make any difference...
So, the first 2.4k effort is well in my comfort zone... the remainder is a struggle.... Am using 180 as my HR, as I achieved that over the last 300mtrs of a 5k when I realised I had a chance of breaking 20mins... Most of my races I go above 170......
I have been waiting 6 weeks for my next test hoping everything would be great and the difference would be really noticeable. How disappointed I am
28/9/11 Total 62:12
110 15:31 10:21
120 13:19 08:53
130 12:14 08:09
140 11:04 07:23
150 10:04 06:48
08/11/11 Total 62:57
110 15:42 10:28
120 13:42 09:08
130 12:19 08:13
140 11:12 07:28
150 10:02 06:41
So I was slower at every band bar the last one. That is not good. However in my defence I have increased my mileage and I was quite tired coming into today with a 13.5 on Sunday and an 8 miler last night. The other major difference is that I was rather lax on the first test and gave myself between 2 and 2:30 minutes (not intentionally) but I was a lot tighter today.therefore to get the same results definitely less rest is a definite bonus.
Overall I am quite pleased with my progress and I might do another test next week when I am a little bit more rested.
JB - I've not done this actual test (yet) but from my experience of interval training in general, the difference an extra minute's rest can make is highly significant. So I definitely think you can put a positive spin on your session.
I've added a few more touches to my faux-HADD comeback plan. If I can start building up again unhindered from December I'm planning on doing the 2,400m test monthly over Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr. Hopefully this will tell me what sort of shape I'm in for returning to racing about that time. Thursday evening should work - track open, hardly anyone there.
It is interesting that the 4th band is about 7:25 pace and that is whereabouts I think I should be although I have no basis for that belief. My first HM in 23 years in January should get me into the 7:30-7:40 ball park area so I will have to see how training goes.
The 2400M test is quite a hard one and takes a long time. I wish I had gone for a 2K test now. I think that would have been as reliable as the 2.4Km was based on Joe being a much faster runner and therefore not taking as long as us mortals. Doing one monthly will give you a good indication of how things are going
Great news, another Hadd thread. I think this is the best training method of all, last year I knocked 13 mins off my marathon time and the year before 13 minutes.
Just starting again now that my 2011 races are all done with. Goal race is a 100k next year.
Off to read full thread now
JohnnyBike wrote (see)
I have been waiting 6 weeks for my next test hoping everything would be great and the difference would be really noticeable. How disappointed I am...
Johnny - I can't remember, but have you started the ILTHR sessions yet or are you still at the building slow mileage stage?
DD, Phase 1 finished last week. That was all at 75% HR (125) although my longer runs did take me over 130 on some occasions. Overall 95%+ of all runs were at 125 or less in the last 6 weeks.
My ILTHR training starts this week with a plan to do 2 longer runs at 135 AHR and the rest of my running at 125 or less.
I am keeping a blog on this *(and otherrunning related themes)