HADD training plan

15657596162127

Comments

  • Last sub-LT run was back in September when i thought my HR max was 175, but since then have raced a HM and hit 181 so based on that i decided to up the HRav from 145 to 150 for the sub-LT section.

    I always use a 1.32M lap of the block for this as it's fairly flat.

    I was expecting to hit somewhere around 7min miling for the sub-LT section based on :

    1) The Sept run was 7:40 @ 145HRav

    2) My stats consistently show i've improved on the 70% runs by about 20 secs per mile for the same HR since Sept

    3) My pace increases about 4 secs per mile per 1 bpm

    So, 20secs improvement plus 20secs for the extra 5bpm.

    Stats were ( for the sub-LT , excluding 1.3M w/u and 1.3M cool down ) ....

    Lap     Miles      Time      Pace        HR          %

    1        1.32          9:50      7:27        145        80

    2        1.32          9:41      7:20        151        83

    3        1.32          9:41      7:20        151        83

    4        1.32          9:38      7:18        152        84

    5        1.32          9:40      7:19        151        83

    TOT    6.60          48:30    7:21        150        83

    So, not as quick as i expected.

    1) It felt tough at times so maybe i need to get a few of these under my belt as i haven't done one for 2 months and hopefully that's when i'll see the improvement from the 70% runs.

    2) I was convinced that i'd slowed on the last lap a fair bit which is why i didn't continue for another ( planned ) lap - maybe related to 1) in that it felt quicker in the earlier miles as not used to it.

    3) I slept crap last night as i was so excited at the thought of doing this run image

  • mace, well done getting out there and trying a tougher run. There are lots of factors that can affect your run as you know. And also your system does get used to not having to go that far that fast. Having had 2 months without an 80%er, you WILL get slower anyway, it's a fact. Also I am guessing here but I know you have upped your mileage recently and you will be tired as a consequence.

    I'm fairly sure that when you do your next one next week, following a couple of easy days, the pace will change again. Thing is with the 80%ers you need to be doing them consistently to get good results.

    8M easy at lunch.

  • mace - thx for support

    Your Sub-LT run: Do you move up on % of MaxHR or on bpm each time you reach a Lactate Threshold? Does that read write?

    e.g. let's say I reach regularly reach 9 - 10 miles @ 72% (131bpm) with no loss in pace - would I then add 1 workout at 80% (146bpm) or move up say 10bpm to 77% (or is 3% irrevalent at that stage)?

  • Brian - yes, 2 mths ago i was averaging 35-40 a week, now up to 50. And my HR bands have moved up 5 beats. Also, comparing the run up to both runs i get :

    Sept = 6 - 16 - rest - rest - 7 - subLT

    Nov = rest - 17 - 5 - 10 - 7 - subLT

    So next week i think i'll take a rest day before going again.

    Looking over the numbers again i have to say i'm happy with the HR which is solid for consistent pace. Better than it was in September.

  • Well did 6 miles in the wind and rain.   Was a struggle at the slow pace.   Still some pain in my calf.   Hopefully just some stiffness or is back to resting

  • I feel quite lazy when i see the sort of weekly mileage that some of you guys and gals are popping out. How much time are you spending on your feet over the week. I assume it's only possible to be doing 50+ miles per week if you're quite a bit faster than my 10min/miles, otherwise that'd take me over 8 hours.

    This week for example, I'll have run for about 50 mins on mon, tue and thurs, 90mins on weds and about 2 hours on saturday, (resting on thurs and swimming on sunday) and still covering just 35 miles (give or take). Are you high-milers on your feet for the same amount of time, just running faster, or are you also out on the road more often and for longer?

  • AG - most of mine is around 9 min per mile so about 7.5 hrs a week.

    That includes 2 @ 90mins and 1 @ 150mins and then 3 runs of about 45-60mins.

    I'm lucky in that i live a 10 min cycle ride to work so during the week instead of laying in i get up about 90mins earlier than i used to. I'd imagine it's a real job to grind out the miles if you have a decent commute to do.

  • AG - my weekly mileage is 30 at present. Longer training time just isn't possible for me with work, dog walking, living, etc,etc. My aim is to complete HM's only for the time being. I recognise everything will take longer at this mileage but that's it.

    I reckon 30 miles a week for me for HM's is just about OK (unless anyone thinks differently). I would say for full marathon it has to be 40+

  • mace wrote (see) Good grief, things are moving quick in here !! Dr Dan - top running @ Abbey Dash. Sub-40 looks to be in trouble image

    Yep, I can't keep up with the thread anymore... inspiration stuff though!! image

    I have been sub-40 before mace ... and will againimage. However, if that's going to happen, I'd better start training!!!image!!! Recovery over .... time to get back to work!image

     

     

     


     

  • Oh, I'm also originally from Chester ... but now in Leeds.imageimage

  • AG,

    what I am running at present but will increase milage after xmas/ new year, and add one 85% run.

    Monday 5m @ 70%

    Tuesday 7m @ 70%

    Wednesday 10m @ 80% with 1mw/p and 1mw/d total 12m

    Thursday 11m @ 70%

    Friday rest

    Sat parkrun on feel only no HRM used

    Sunday 16m @ 70%

    70% runs are between 9.30 to 10,00 mins a mile

    80% runs are between 8.0 to 8.10 mins a mile

    parkruns average 7 mins a mile

    The park runs will be ran at 70% or not run at all early next year. Milage just over 50, with if I wish 2 days rest. As you can see lots of slow miles.

     

     

  • AG- at the moment now I'm fully recovered from chester marathon (disaster- ill with tonsillitis) training is back up to full mileage.

    Mostly training is between 7:30 and 8min mile pace apart from 2interval sessions a week, 1 parkrun and now an 80%run each week. So last week for example was 12hrs 47mins in total ave 7:35pace overall.
  • BD2000 - sorry i missed your post earlier.

    I'd suggest going to 80% - i stand to be corrected but i believe the theory is that 75-80% is a 'nothing' zone ie. it's not low enough to develop mitochondria to improve aerobically and not high enough to stimulate/increase lactate threshold. Then once you can nail pace/HR @ 80%, you nudge HR up by up to 5 beats. Once you 'master' that next level you nudge HR up a bit more so you are gradually easing the threshold up.

  • Thats the theory Mac but its never rung true to me (not that I have any firm evidence to the contrary, just a gut feeling). I accept its too low for lactate runs but not so sure about the aerobic side of things. The Hadd document has "Joe" running in this range when he's relatively new to the schedule.

    I think its more likely,  rather than it being some sort of "dead zone" where its not helping anthing inprove, the disadvatage of 75-80 running lies in that you can get similar results aerobically running at 70-75% while also managing more miles, more time on feet and with less chance of injury. 

     

    Like I say, just a gut feeling though.image

  • AG - I thought that about mileage and time a while ago as well. I also remembered after I had been running consistently for a few months that there was no way I could manage to squeeze in more than 30mpw into my busy life. Since that time I have increased my responsibilities at work, started an MA and gained another child. Yet this week I am probably going to exceed 60miles. It is all about creative time management (and very early mornings image

    Here is my last week (60miles, 7hr 15min) to give you an idea:

    Mon 5m 45min easy Tue 11m 90min @141 Wed 5m 45min easy Thu 14m 2hr @ 14m Fri 5m 45min easy Sat 10m @143 90min Sun No running as race Marshall
  • Mace / Gaz - So 70 - 75% is good and 80% is good but 76, 77, 78, 79% is bad? image It seems a very exact science, this Hadding.

  • Thats how I understand it and make a point of slowing if the HR goes over by even just 1% for a few meters. Not introduced any 80% runs yet I am enjoying the slower runs and getting the miles in between night shifts. Should be 50 again this week if I dont drown first !!

    Last week was 50 miles,  7.5 hours in total.

  • The benefit of 77% runs is that you are getting used to running quicker before up to 80%

  • andy the deestrider. That works out at approx. 100 miles for the week - what sort of schedule are you on!!!???

  • Keir wrote (see)

    Mace / Gaz - So 70 - 75% is good and 80% is good but 76, 77, 78, 79% is bad? image It seems a very exact science, this Hadding.

    Not for me Kier, as I've said that doesn't "feel" right to me.

    I think theres every chance that 70-75% is more effective aerobically than 75-80  from a milage/ effort/ injury point of view but I find it hard to see that theres this "dead zone" where you are not getting aerobic benefit from your runs because of a view % here or there.

  • mmmm...to cut the Gordian knot, I think, to borrow from the techie Triathletes, "dead zone" is anywhere between "not aerobic" to "not above LT"...so anything more than 8x% but less than 9x%.

    So, run your aerobic runs slow, your speed/tempo (not Hadd, I admit) above 90%....Hadd's point is that most club runners do loads of miles somewhere between 80% and 90%, and it's all a waste of time. ..as I've found out over the last 3 years of training...image

  • How many miles a week were you managing at that level Tek?

  • Good point, Gaz. 40? Then a week off through injury...
  • Thats my point Tek. I'm not sure its the heart rate thats the blame, its just that us mere mortals can't put in 60-70 miles weeks consistently at that speed without getting injured.

    Theres every chance the improvement you've seen is "just" due from being able to train at 60/ 70 miles a week and injury free rather than at 40 miles a week? If you could do 70 miles a week at 75-80% then I'd guess you'd see improvement.

    I think the cause and effect of Hadd is being able to do the extra miles every week when you run slower rather than the faster running being worthless in itself.

    Again though, just a gut feeling. 

  • one gear no particular plan, yet. Although I've been doing all 70% running to get that base mileage in. likeing the improvent over last 6 weeks. 70% of max hr (140bpm) would get me about 8:30 or slower, now the same effort gets me 7:30- 7:50pace image



    other than hadd training theres been 2weekly track sessions. Monday (very hard) and thursday (fairly comfertable).

    On the mileage, last week was about 101mile. This week is about 76 so far.
  • andy - awesome mileage

    Gaz - I thought about this last night, and the debate begs another question: why not train at say 65%?  Even less injuries, but I guess even more hours to reach the same physiological benefits re aerobic capacity?

    If you look at the example schedules Hadd gives after Joe has reached 50m pw, the runs are at various HRs from 73% to 83%...the lower ones to ensure they are deeply aerobic, the higher ones to nudge up the LT, all the time recognising that no-one really knows "where" LT is.

    This is my second stab at Hadd and I now think over time you can nudge all the HR zones up - but 70 or 75 plus a dash of 80-83 is easy to remember and keeps you focussed on managing drift.

    I dream of the day I might handle the fast Hadd stuff he goes on about on the Letsrun thread...e.g 3 x 3k at 95-96% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery...I'd need to be AtD for that in a 100 mile weekimage

    ...now off to repair my awful stats at 70% which are sh*t again... 

  • mace - going back a couple of pages- isn't that a HUGE improvement in your subLT pace?  image  Could you map out how that's gone over the last few months (need something to look forward to...)?

  • Teknik - As mentioned a few pages back (identified from the Fetch thread), I don't think HADD tells Joe to run at 70% at all. 75% is the slowest. I have gone through the HADD thread as well and although he focuses on pace rather than HR, again, nothing indicates below 75%. So I would wonder how anyone could interpret HADD as recommending 65%. HADD seems to be saying slower is better, but surely there s a point where slower is actually worse, or else we would be better off running 20m/m as per the 1880s pedestrians.

    I understand that 80 - 90% is an inbetween zone. I am sure we are getting fit running in this zone, but not optimising our training and increasing injury risk. As others have said, this seems to be the main point of HADD.

    Very impressive mieage AtL

  • Keir wrote (see)
    Teknik - As mentioned a few pages back (identified from the Fetch thread), I don't think HADD tells Joe to run at 70% at all. 75% is the slowest. I have gone through the HADD thread as well and although he focuses on pace rather than HR, again, nothing indicates below 75%.

    I think that the lower HRs are sometimes quoted as being "Hadd" due to confusing % maxHR and % wHR ... 75% maxHR is often around 65% wHR for most people. However, Hadd's does say that "Easy everyday running" should be 75% maxHR or lower, so I wouldn't worry about going down to below 70% (especially on LSRs where you're also trying to improve fat usage).

     

  • Interesting debate going on.

    Has anybody got the original Hadd document?

    I have tried to find it on the net without success. The analysis on Letsrun doesn't seem to be the same as the original to my memory. I remember Joe doing lots of work at 130/135 HRs and in the zone 130-140. These are 67%/70% and zone 67%-73%.

Sign In or Register to comment.