HADD training plan

18889919394127

Comments

  • Mace my HR at 72% is 115 bpm my max being 160.

    if you are working at 129 bpm ave on your run you might indeed be working too hard as it equates to 80% effort.

    Or have I got it wrong.

    what ever HR its still a good pace.

     

  • Mace please ignore the above, just one of those dooh moments.

  • BeDe - you have the same max and similar resting HR as me and you are at least a munute quicker than me per mile at the same HR   ..image

    Brian - I got injured reading your training plan!!  Makes my training plan look like child like crayon scribbles.  You do a lot of cross training which was very interesting.  Ive never heard rowing mentioned as x training option, is this instead of cycling?

    I need to know whats P&D? Ive read a lot of Hadd now but not all  ..?!

    The one thing that worries me about Hadd versus parker or MaxHR versus workingHR is that the first one is not relevant to fitness as it doesnt include resting rate which is.  I have a max HR of 183 and my wife who doesnt run has a max of 163, my resting pulse is less than 55 whereas my wifes is around 68? On MaxHR she would seem much fitter than me but on resting I would appear a lot fitter,

    Great thread this lots of good content and banter!

  • Lee - you will see from my thread yesterday that when I first started HADD (September 2012) that my times at 73%-75% of MaxHR were MUCH slower than now. This is as a result of the base phase building which took 4 months for me. For someone aerobically fitter it might only take 2 months. To get to where I am today (with some limited 80%+ work) has taken 6 months. Also make sure you are comparing like for like and not using the HR reserve numbers.

    Mace - great stats - keep em cominimage

  •  

    Morning all,

    mace, I will guesstimate on your 70% run above, but I would be happier estimating on 80% (or even better 83%) for the 10miles in the middle.

    My workings:

    Your max looks like 180. You've done 8:45s for 128 (71%).

    I am going to  reckon on you being able to average 86% in the marathon, which is 155bpm. This gives you another 27 beats on top of the 128.

    The conversion from bpm to secs/mile is between 3 and 4. My conversion factor is 3 so for your puposes I'll use 3.

    27x3 = 81s.

    Marathon pace is 8:45 - 81 = 7:24 pace. This equates to 3:14. Remember this is a huge guess at the moment.

    I know you are doing a P&D plan at the moment. Does it include MP runs? What distances?

     

  • Ive just got back from a

  • Brian - love the stats stuff. I've always wondered about the bpm secs/mile - never got round to sorting it out. Now you've got me interested in something else!!! image

  • macemace ✭✭✭

    Brian - my last MP run was 16 w12 @ MP

    Overall the 16M was @ 8:04 @ 80% ave , and the 12M MP section somewhere around 7:45 and i was up to about 84% at the end of the MP section.

    Lee - BeDe's patience is paying off, stick with it and your pace will improve for the same HR. I started out at 11:30 @ 70% and am now under 9:00 about a year later.

  • Lee, I row cos (indoor) cycling bores me. I find it much easier to achieve the higher heart rates on the rower as opposed to the bike. I have really got into the rowing on the back of being injured. It is a sport I would consider competing in if I couldn't run. The stepper and cross-trainers (skiing things) are good also for raising the hr.

    I agree on the resting HR - it does change with fitness. But the starting point is genetic, just like cholestorol in my opinion.

    P&D is Pfitzinger and Douglas. The authors of a very good book for the 26.2 -"Advanced Marathoning".

     

  • macemace ✭✭✭

    Brian - the way i see it is 3:15 is a GFA time for me. To go close but not under 3:15 would be gutting !! I think i'd be happier with 3:30 than 3:16 and there's obviously less chance of blowing up and having an awful race with a 3:30.

    Having said that, i'm open to persuasion image

  • BeDe, very pleased to oblige.

    mace, 12M at mp is hard! How did it feel? I have done one run (outside a race) of that distance and never gone further. For your first marathon I would've suggested 80% 10milers as a better start point, and progressing to 83% for the last 1 or 2. When I mention these %ages, these are averages for the 10mile (or 70mins) section. 

  • macemace ✭✭✭

    Brian - it felt ok, very comfortable at times when out of the wind. I could have done a few more miles i'm sure.

     

  • mace, thought soimage

  • For the Stats Monster image - all these are taken from 4 different runs per month from within the 70%-75% MaxHR range - all are averaged out and shows bpm secs/mile;

    Sept - 5.25

    Oct  - 5.01 = 4.5% improvement over previous month

    Nov - 4.90 = 2.2% improvement over previous month

    Dec - 4.70 = 4.0% improvement over previous month

    Jan  - 4.64 = 1.3% improvement over previous month

    Feb  - 4.52 = 2.5% improvement over previous month

    Overall for 6mths I have a 14% improvement for this particular measurement

    I'm sure Brian understands this better but at least it's a good way of measuring improvement. Does this make sense to anyone?

  • BeDe, How have you come across the 1st figure - 5.25, 5.01 etc?

  • Brian - I took the pace / bpm; e.g. 11:33 / 132bpm = 5.25

    I then took 4 runs per month and averaged it out.

    If we take your tempo run you posted on 7/2 yours worked out as follows: 5:59 / 160bpm = 2.25 (quick!!)

    or your easy run on 9/2: 7:54 / 120bpm = 3.95

     

  • So if my calculations are OK it follows that if we take an average of 155bpm for me (85% MaxHR) and say that is what I should be able to manage for my HM and put in 3.5 then my average pace would be 9:03 giving me a sub 2hr half (1:58)

    Calculation is: 3.5 * 155 = 9:03

    Given that my recent run at 82% 151 came out at 9:20 this gave me the following; 9:20 / 151 = 3.70

  • Some really impressive stats.   Here,  ive been plugging away with the milage and some 80% run.   Was 10 miles at 8.23.

    Brian for the LSR runs what %HR would you say do?  65%?

  • spen - was that 8:23 for 80%?

  • Yet another indicator of fitness! I wonder if I can fit another column on my spreadsheet?image

    spen, I would say it varies. I think the time-on-your-feet runs (most of your long runs) should be very easy, so yes 65-70%. When doing the harder sessions, either composite, intervals or progressive, I would aim to average about 75%. 

    Yet another indicator (think I may've mentioned this) is beats per mile. Thanks Philpub. BPM = Time/distance*HR

    The lower this figure the better. The lower results come from the easier runs.

  • Sorry yes BeDe.   Im getting fitness back to where I was 18 months ago when I did a 1:41 HM.

  • macemace ✭✭✭
    Brian. wrote (see)

    mace, thought soimage

    image 

  • Brian - I thought your 'between 3 & 4' which you mentioned to mace was calculated this way? No? Have I created something completely new?? I claim copyright NOW!image

  • BeDe, The seconds/mile is just a comparison between runs of a similar nature. The way I get 3secs/mile for each beat is by taking 2 runs and comparing them.

    Example:

    Run 1. 10miles@120 = 8:30pace

    Run 2. 10miles@130 = 8:00pace

    The difference is 10bpm for 30secs/mile, therefore for this runner, each beat is worth 3s/mile.

    The comparison should be on runs of similar distance, terrain and gradient.

    Your indicator is a direct measure of fitness - Pace(in secs)/HR. You have a mix of variables there though, the top number in the divide is pace, so the faster the pace the the lower the seconds the lower the result. The bottom number is HR and the lower this number the higher the result?

    Your indicator would be better as speed(mph)/HR. The higher the speed, and the lower the HR, the higher the result.

    Beats per mile works the other way. The lower the result the better. Pace*HR - The lower BOTH these variables the lower the result.

    Sorry for my waffle.

     

  • macemace ✭✭✭

    Brian - you extrapolated my max at 180 ... i use 181 as that's the most i've seen which was at the top of a hill at mile 12 of a HM. I suspect that it could be a tad higher ?

    11M this morning with 6.5M @ 10M-HMP ..... so my target was to hit my 10M time of 7:07. The last 2 P&D LT sessions have been a bit limp due to snow and then illness. So wasn't really looking forward to it

    Bloody cold and even bloodier windy image 

    7 laps of a circuit LT bit went like this :

    Lap       Pace       HRav      %max

    1           7:07       152          84

    2           7:07       154          85

    3           7:06       156          86

    4           7:07       157          86

    5           7:06       160          88

    6           7:09       160          88

    7           7:06       161          89

    Tot        7:06       157          87

     

    Had to push quite hard on the sections into the wind so i think this probably cost me a bit. Fairly tough run overall and i was glad to get it done - and delighted that i hit my target.image

     

     

        

  • mace, that's a seriously good effort given the cold and wind! I also am tempted to think that your max will be a tad higher. Given the fact that I ran a hilly HM recently and my HRmax on that run was 175 and I am using 184 at the moment! Come to think of it I haven't seen 180 since.........?

  • 23/12 Xmas h/cap race of 4miles. 181.

  • Not waffle - I like stats too - just sorry for everybody else on this forum who might notimage
    Brian. wrote (see)

    BeDe, The seconds/mile is just a comparison between runs of a similar nature. The way I get 3secs/mile for each beat is by taking 2 runs and comparing them.

    Example:

    Run 1. 10miles@120 = 8:30pace

    Run 2. 10miles@130 = 8:00pace

    The difference is 10bpm for 30secs/mile, therefore for this runner, each beat is worth 3s/mile.

    The comparison should be on runs of similar distance, terrain and gradient.

    Your indicator is a direct measure of fitness - Pace(in secs)/HR. You have a mix of variables there though, the top number in the divide is pace, so the faster the pace the the lower the seconds the lower the result. The bottom number is HR and the lower this number the higher the result?

    Your indicator would be better as speed(mph)/HR. The higher the speed, and the lower the HR, the higher the result.

    Beats per mile works the other way. The lower the result the better. Pace*HR - The lower BOTH these variables the lower the result.

    Sorry for my waffle.

     I like the bpm / HR better as a direct measure of fitness as I take the stats only from the 70% - 75% range. This means over time I can always compare like for like given I average it over say 4 runs per month. Yes numbers get lower this way - if you did HR / bpm the numbers go higher to show improvement - depends how you want to show it. As speed relates directly to pace it doesn't matter which one you use really, the important number is the bpm at a given %MaxHR - as long as you compare the same %MaxHR over time the numbers will (either falling or rising depending on which way round you use them) tell the story of improving aerobic fitness.

    mace - fantastically stable pace with very little drift - I assume course nice and flat? How long to race?

  • anyone know of a good site to find running routes  ...Im in Hampshire on Sunday and have to find a decently flat 6 miler?

    Did 4 miles yesertday at

Sign In or Register to comment.