Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
HADD Training Method
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
100-100 can be 400-800m pace for STs, but more like 800-1500m pace for FTs. Watch the temptation to lengthen the jog rec to push the fast bits harder. The jog rec is the part that should shorten (from 45s to 40s to even 35s) before you increase the pace of the fast 100m strides. Also never forget, these are not the main session simply a primer.
Race goal will probably never come in Phase I unless the addition of Phase I training onto your previous training fills a big hole in your training methodology. It should never get you marathon-ready, because it peaks at 85% HRmax and a marathon will be run at 87-90% HRmax. But it may be possible to run a marathon PR within Phase I, but it means your marathon time was very poor. Your optimal marathon performance should come after Phase IIb.
Outta time again. Hope this helps.
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3241230#ixzz4W7IkLOnZ
"If you want to run a decent marathon you should expect to run 70-90mpw for a long build up to give it a decent crack."
Yes, this is exactly the point I am making. To reach your own potential marathon best via hadd's method, you need to put in the miles. This doesn't mean you'll be as fast as Joe of course, but it does mean your ability at 5K and 26.2 miles should correlate (edit: nb. I think some people achieve this correlation by being very inefficient at 5K, usually by avoiding any speed-work for many years ... that's not the same thing of course!).
"How do you know when Phase I is done? When you can run 60 mins straight at 85% HRmax and you do not have to slow to stop your HR rising, or your HR does not rise if you continue at the same pace."
So I have just about completed phase 1 in the past based on this ... but that's VERY different from maintaining 85% for 3:30 in a marathon.
No problemo ... so looks like 145 bpm would be a sensible HR cut-off for the 10 mile subLT sessions, and once you're pace-stable between 3-7 miles at 145, eventually moving up to 150 bpm. And 127 bpm for easy runs. Let us know how you get on!
I was trying to find the Zach Bitter podcast, so went looking for my old post. And then discovered I posted the wrong link!!
It's here: http://openskyfitness.com/zach-bitter-ep-130/
Sol2 - thanks for that, very interesting.
I've never run a 5km in my life, and have no immediate plans to do so. My last 10km was 7 years ago, unlikely I'll run one this year. I haven't run a half marathon for 2 years, I have entered one this year, in March.
Nearly all my races are marathons and I do a few ultras too so I'm only interested in the marathon training phase of Hadd so for me Phase 1 is completed when I can run 10 miles with no cardiac drift at 70% MHR, then I move to introduce 2 ILTHR runs a week at 77-80% until I can run 10 miles at that HR with no cardiac drift, that's the stage I'm on now.
Dr Dan - I absolutely agree re high mileage to run your best marathon. The last time I ran a marathon PB was in 2010 and I managed to get a couple of 100 mile weeks into my training. I ran 3 marathon PB's that year, a 10km PB, 50 mile PB and 6 hour PB. I didn't manage to do a half marathon PB as the only race I could find was the day after a marathon, I did give it my best shot but could only hold PB pace to 9 miles then had to back off.
I think it unlikely I'll PB again at the shorter distances, or even a marathon, age is against me now but what I'm looking for is to be able to run marathons and ultras at a comfortable pace and feel that I'm doing justice to my races, we'll see.
Just to add that in 2010 when I did those PB's I trained to Hadd's principles for marathon training but never got as far as doing any runs higher than 80% MHR in training except when I did a Hadd test.
Shades -I think your last comment is testament to the 'runs slow to run fast' principle.
I've often wondered: does working to improve your Aerobic Threshold also nudge up your Lactate Threshold, and conversely, does working to improve your Lactate Threshold also drag up your Aerobic Threshold?
Yeah, just different points on the lactate curve I guess.
Martyn - no, I don't really have a schedule to when I'm ready for the next stage/phase. I find with Hadd you just have to plod on and the results will come but there's no timetable. I had a great start when I started Hadd at the beginning of November but I'm sort of treading water now and seem to have stalled a bit. My training has been curtailed a bit by icy conditions so I'm below my desired mileage for 2 or 3 weeks. Was planning my next Hadd test this weekend but I think I will postpone it for a couple of weeks and do a long run instead.
I've stuck to pure hadd this week which has shown my quickest average pace per mile right on 11 min miles. So the frost isn't all bad as I'm sure the cold is helping from that aspect and luckily didn't seem that slippery.
How is everyone else getting on?
I'm debating a park run next Saturday.
It's a fascinating read this thread, thanks Sol for directing me here! I'm giving this a good go, pace just feels so so slow but am keeping the faith, one thing that keeps cropping up in my mind is that it's mentioned that pace for the slow / easy should be 3 minutes per mile slower than 5k pace, it's just my pace using HRM's is 4.40 mins / mile slower than my 5k PB. Do I stick to the HRM or should I run the 3 min / mile slower and monitor my HR and wait for it to 'level out' and then go back to 70% HR?
Some more info on me, two weeks ago I ran for 97 mins at nearly 3 min / mile slower then my 5k which was around 82% of my estimated MHR, I ran this on a lovely spring morning. Last Sunday I ran for 40 mins at around 3.46 min / mile slower than my 5k pace but my HR was 89%, this was on a really cold evening. Also, the longer one was done at an even consistent effort, the second one I started off quicker and slowed down half way through.
This week I did a run @11.05 at 67% pace. This is the best time of year to start as the cold will help keep your hr down.
Martyn, wow thats amazing progress, I can be quite patient, just want to make sure I'm doing things right and saw somewhere recently if your HR at 70% is slower then 3 mins per mile on your 5k you should run the 3 min / mile.
I would say the majority of posters on this thread have done the 5k plus 3 mins rule and it seems to of worked well for them. You just need to wait until your aerobic base improves and your hr comes down which can take anywhere between 1 and 3 months. (For the record, I've trained using the sub 70% hr rule rather than 5k plus 3mins.
I will leave that to one of the more seasoned Hadders to answer as I've not come across the answer.
So my week cut back week has gone well with 35 miles run in 6 hours 22 mins.averaging 75% Hr. @10:54.
I stayed away from any speedwork during the week instead sticking to pure Hadd sub 70% in my three midweek runs.
Then on Saturday I did 3 miles@10:51 68%, 7 miles @9:45 78% and then 2 miles @12:51 71%, this was a small leaf out of Dr Dans book as I recall he did these type of 'progression' runs previously.
And finally a trail run with my club in the woods and hills this morning where my Heart rate was irrelevant, but here are the stats anyway 8.45 miles @10:41 averaging 77% hr.
No real long run this week, but I'm looking to do either a Hadd test on Tuesday or Thursday if jack frost stays away, or my first race in 7 weeks in a park run on Saturday.
How have everyone else's weeks been? I'm craving stats, and its always good to compare.
Martyn, well done on putting in a good solid weeks training. Trails and hills are great.
I'll put up my week's stats tonight or tomorrow, as my long run will be this evening.
Let me say first of all that I would never expect a runner on here to be running 11 min miles. Never in my maddest moment would I advise that. Probably the slowest runner I advise is a female who runs 22:00/5k, 45:00/10k and 3:30 marathon. Her easy runs are about 9.00-9.15 (140-145 HR). Unless you are PR's are like hers, I would not expect you to be running 9.15+ mins/mile. Or anything like it.
I had actually mentioned in the One Approach thread that i did not use the HR's as explained for runners under, say, 18 years old. Work with enough runners and you will see trends. The following are often cases where I have to adjust the initial training paces/HR's of runners who come to me. See if you fit in any of them:
1. Age (usually under 17, maybe 18 tops)
2. Not yet fully developed physically (often allied to young age. Two boys aged 17 can be totally different physically.)
3. Female
4. Lack of previous training background
5. Someone very quick over 200-400m (not an "instant" distance runner-type) who thinks 30 mins is a long run
6. All of the above
So when I see such a runner (and they are always young), and find excrutiatingly slow paces at the HR's they are given, I adjust the HR's upwards and then watch them carefully. This is okay for me to do because I am allying their HR to lactate testing to ensure I am not working them too hard (ie: not relying on HR alone). This is not usually a problem, because in young, not-yet-fully-developed runners, their anaerobic system is not yet fully active. They can often run at high HR's with low-ish lactate. The trick is to keep them easy.
Because that is all we are trying to do here, define what "easy" means for each individual. Because almost everybody gets it wrong. By this I mean a pace that is definitely under 2mmol lactate, and even better, under 1.5mmol (difficult at first). If you are a young runner, and you have never been tested, you will not realise how easy a pace this is. You would call it drag-ass slow and never dream of running such a pace. Which is the problem.
I once read a study (forget the reference, a thing I rarely do) in which they tested a group of normal runners at their "normal" pace. The researchers were surprised to find that this was very close to 4 mmol. Day in, day out. In a highly trained athlete, this would be absurdly high, and a very serious pace. In these ordinary runners it was their just-about-on-the-limit-of-comfortable pace. Improvement on such training is limited.
But, as i have already explained (and don't feel up to explaining again), we need to get to a pace much slower than this. Down where we can recruit our ST fibres in a totally aerobic environment, and just work them individually till fuel exhaustion. And twice per week we will work at the upper limit of this aerobic environment and work (more of them at one time) a bit harder, while still remaining fully aerobic. By doing this, we can edge up the pace at which we stay aerobic (with low lactate) until we reach fast running speeds.
Here's a question: What is the one thing that shows up in all that research comparing black African runners (whether Kenyan or S. African) with white N. Europeans? That the Africans have lower lactate values (are more aerobic) at all running paces. This, as a consequence of having a greater development of aerobic enzymes within their running muscles. That's what we need to achieve.
So. what do I do when I meet a 15 year old girl, 5ft 2in in height, weighing 95 pounds, who only runs 3 x 30 mins per week with her father?
Well, it ain't easy. I have to forgo the lower end HR's, because at 140 and 150 she is barely above walking pace. Asking her to do that for any length of time is sure to
With me? I am not here to kill your love of running. And I did remark that young runners were different. A special case. I should maybe have discussed this more since it seems a lot of teenagers frequent this site.
No more 11- or 10-min miles. I wouldn't inflict those on my worst enemy. Not even 9-min miles (unless you are like Natalia, above, the 3.30 marathoner). I would be asking questions of anyone running slower than 5k-pace + 3.00 mins per mile. I could see this as an example of fairly poor aerobic conditioning. In time, I would expect to see this move up to 5k + 2mins at the same HR. Around that pace (with the right HR) is okay. I could understand beginning at a pace of 8.30m/m or so, for someone just starting to train this way, but I would be looking for improvement pretty quick.
But no more screamin' jeebees like some poor schmuck stuck in the slo-mo zone. Okay?
So, do this if the pace is down in the 9-11 min mile zone and you fit one of the descriptions I numbered above. Calculate your 5k PR 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. Your higher pace for the harder workouts can be this HR + 10-15bpm (but not higher than 170).
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.
Like this: I told you to run at 145-150 because your max is 195+. This pace is 10-mins mile. You have a 17.00 PR for 5km. Since this is ~5.30m/m, add on 3 mins/mile and do your easy runs at 8.30m/m and watch the HR at this pace. It might be 155-160. If it climbs, you want to know it, because you need to get to a stage where it doesn't climb at this pace. So, take notes.
Think about this for a bit. Your heart is sending all this blood loaded with oxygen to your muscles and you are running this slow. You think top runners run this slow at 155 HR? Two-three mins per mile slower than 5k pace? No way. Last Friday I browsed a number of other forums I have seen mentioned on here (mens-racing, fast-women and Marius Bakken). Never visited some of them.
On Marius' site i came across a little nugget: a post from Marius himself, (go here: http://www.mariusbakken.com/fo...s...)
"Radcliffe. Her training shows 3-4 treshold sessions weekly year around. Her HR at the long, hard, intervalls is right there (175-180 Hr with a max around 195) "
Now, you should recognise that I gave this as the HRmarathon range of someone with this HRmax. I also said that this would be due to some drift due to build-up of heat over 2hrs. If a runner with such a HRmarathon runs this HR for only 30-45 mins in training (and little drift, which happens less in good runners anyway), they will find themselves running somewhat faster than marathon (M) pace. Like M-7 secs or M-10 secs per mile. Right where Marius says Paula's running pace would be.
We can also be confident that if Paula is running 155 HR, she will be running around 5.50-6.00m/m. Definitely not 5k + 3 mins pace.
So, you should be asking yourself, why am I so slo
So, to get back to the advice. You might be running easy at maybe 155-160 HR (as above) and 8.30m/m. Now go by HR here, not by pace. Soon you will find some days getting a bit quicker than 8.30 and you are still 155-160. Now when the pace at this HR improves regularly to 8.10m/m or better (and it will), drop the easy HR down (by 5bpm) to 150-155 and continue (this might also cause the pace to slow up again to 8.30, but since it will now be at a lower HR, that is okay, because the lower HR is a sign of improved aerobic capability in your leg muscles and will show itself when you go back up to race pace).
Now don't get me wrong, 8.30m/m is still very slow, but you need to start somewhere. If we do this right, you won't stay at that pace for long.
Any questions... fire away.
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=134124&page=1#ixzz4WUjNncNl
Glad to hear you are getting motivated to train properly and looking more long-term. You have done well just to recognise intuitively (with little running experience) that something was not good for you and to start looking round for help and advice.
Put all thought of paces per mile, and races out of your mind and just settle down and do good work for some months. If you do it properly, in time the results will take care of themselves.
Remember, don't get too caught up in HR's. Don't be a slave to the monitor. It must feel dead easy, that it is very little effort to run. If you find it becoming tough, or "work", just slow down. If it's a chore, take a day off.
After a while, leave the HRm at home, by then you should know what "easy" feels like. Try and wean yourself off it eventually and just go on your body's feedback. Learn to listen and read the signals... they are all there.
Build up over time till a 90 mins run is "peanuts". Easy to do and not something to dread on the schedule. So easy that if I met you after 90 mins and told you to go another 30 mins you would have no problems continuing (and not be making rude signs at me !).
Talking of peanuts (and I'm going to be a bad name here soon, mentioning them so often), do nibble some nuts during the day. Great energy for long distance runners. Also some butter and maybe a bit of cream. Don't be thinking carbohydrates all the time. We need more fat than you think, and the good oils (olive oil etc) are not enough on their own.
Enjoy your training. Don't be shy to ask new questions as they crop up.
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=42240&page=2#ixzz4WUk6VwJB
The young "you" is a prime example of how most HS and college runners on here train. You should now understand that your weekly average was so low, because there was no way you could add in any more fast miles and still survive. I could relate a number of stories of guys just like you.
So, what to do? Well, as you can see, there is no way to go back to that kind of training. Now it's long and steady mileage and top it up with a modicum of hills and speedwork.
I always believe each run should be enjoyable and not a chore (having said that I have run up to a max of 137 mpw and don't recall "whistling a song" on too many of those runs). But miles and miles of sluggish training will damage anyone's motivation.
So, with you, let's do this:
A HR of 170+ is too hard (even though it is do-able). So just run at a max of steady 160 HR. As you can read in these (far too many) posts of mine, try and build up to alternating days of 90 mins and 60 mins. Take some weeks to do this and don't jump into it. Even build a Sunday up to 2 hrs+.
Now this pace at 160 HR should become fast(er) pretty quickly. When it does, drop the daily average HR to 155 and continue at 155... when THAT pace improves, drop the daily average to 150 and continue at 150. By then you should be running at 150 HR at the same speed that used to require 160 HR. So, do NOT keep hammering away at 160 HR all the time.
Now, once or twice per week, when you are have built up to where the 150-155 HR runs are at a reasonable pace, add in one or two runs per week at 160-165 HR. These might be in the form of 2 x 30 mins at 165 HR (one evening) and 60 mins straight at 160 HR another evening.
At all times control the effort and do not let the HR climb after the first 20 mins or so (meaning: after it has stabilised). The weather is pretty cool now, most places, and you should not have to contend with baking heat and high sweat rates.
So, run easy, run long, and 170 and 180 HR's are too high. In 3 months you should be a much improved runner. See you then.
In time you will get back to the fast and faster, but, as you should understand reading all these posts, the EFFORT (in terms of aerobic/anaerobic mix) required to run at those paces will be different than it used to be.
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=42240&page=2#ixzz4WUklsgP0
Hope this makes sense!
Iprice ... your estimated maxHR is likely to be way off you real maxHR. There is no way you would be running "5KP+3:30" at 89% maxHR. It's more likely that your average race pace at 5K is around 90%.
Should have been a 38 mile week for me but family emergency meant I had to travel at the weekend and so missed Sunday's long run. 20:22 at parkrun, 23 miles in total with 44 miles on the bike.
Martyn, wow thats amazing progress, I can be quite patient, just want to make sure I'm doing things right and saw somewhere recently if your HR at 70% is slower then 3 mins per mile on your 5k you should run the 3 min / mile.
Don't know how that last post from me appeared lol. Anyhow I Martin I use a Garmin Forerunner 235, it seems to be fairly responsive