Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Base Training Revisited
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
One of the strengths of Hadd's approach is that we are dealing with runners of very good to moderate club standard and looking at what specific improvements can be made to their training.
For example, I set out to run a 2:45 marathon on 3 consecutive occasions and each time blew up in the last 6 miles to record 2:50, 2;49 and 2:51. By applying the approach outlined in the thread MM has analysed I was able to break through to 2:42.
I think the issue with `Joe's' mileage should not have too much read into it. I don't imagine Hadd was sitting there with Joe's detailed training log in front of him, but trying to give a general indication the sort of path his training was following.
You can take any training manual and dissect it. What Hadd was doing was not writing the definitive all-encompassing guide on how to train, but answering (in a great deal of detail) questions on a public forum about how he trained his athletes and individual queries from others about how they should train.
Remember - the 6 part posts were not edited in any way as they would be in a published work. Any apparent difficulties with the information need to be considered in that context.
If we accept this, would Seb Coe, whose 5k time was very poor compared to his 800/1500 times (in contrast to Ovett), have benefitted from dropping speedwork entirely in his base/general conditioning phase of the season?
Re. Seb Coe, did it matter his 5k time was poorer than Ovett's? His training worked for him.
"I think the issue with `Joe's' mileage should not have too much read into it. I don't imagine Hadd was sitting there with Joe's detailed training log in front of him, but trying to give a general indication the sort of path his training was following."
I think this is a fair point. If we follow this line of reasoning do you think that it's resonable to suggest that we not read too much into the heart rate data either. Perhaps where 150-160 bpm is stated for a particular workout we might consider the possibility the workout was actually conducted at 160-170 bpm or 170-180 bpm.
The way I read the part about Joe's mileage is that Hadd maybe told him to run for 2 hours, Joe maybe ran 2:10 and stuck 20 miles down in his log rather than 19.2 or whatever. We don't know - as I said Hadd is trying to give an outline of his methods not a training schedule down to the nearest mile and minute.
It is running in the correct HR zone that matters here, not exactly how long you run for.
That would explain the missing miles.
V. interesting though....
My question is why is it so is necessary to minimise cardiac drift.
In his analysis Hadd uses the idea that undertrained athletes will borrow from their anaerobic energy sources to fund their pace - this will rightly occure if the cardiac drift takes us through the LT. But what if we are running at the lower end of the range, eg 70% MHR. Even a reasonable amount of drift wouldn't make us go anaerobic, so we're still stressing our bodies ability to create and clear lactate - no problems apparently.
I can't see where Hadd explains this. The toothpaste analogy illustrates how it works, but it doesn't explain why we should do it that way. The only suggestions I can think of are either that we are so untrained when we start base training, that our LT is only just above 70%MHR (unlikely?) or that its good discipline which will hold us in good stead when we are training at higher rates of intensity which are closer to LT.
I often quote Daniel's approach which is to do tempo runs as close to LT as possible, as an alternative. This is where cardiac drift is most important as it takes a very well trained and experience runner to run this close to LT without going anaerobic - despite the pace guidelines Daniel's gives.
If it drifts at 70% up to (say) 77% to maintain a particular pace, no worries in the short term as you say. You are still building mitochondria etc.
However if you get to running at 85% and start to drift up to 90% and beyond to maintain the same pace then you're going to be toast in a marathon as you will accumulate too much lactic acid and `blow up', like I used to.
Is this the same thing ?
Why - when I am running at 70% MHR (not every occasion) does my HR increase by upto 5 beats without increased effort, and despite slowing (treadmill accuracy) by 1kmph does the HR not drop, or if it does then it creeps up again at the slower pace. Is this because I have insufficient glycogen to burn carbs or insufficient carbs and therefore burn fat (which I understand is more oxygen demanding) and thus demands greater HR to sustain the same pace. I also wonder if poor air quality and heat have an influence here too ???
Sorry for minor distraction but would be grateful for your (plural) clearly clever minds' thoughts on this.
Thanks for your explanation, MM. Extremely detailed stuff, you seem to be able to quote so much of it seemingly off the top of your head I get the impression you might be a sports science student. Clearly it's something you have a great interest in (me, I'm more history/oceanography/sports biographies!)
Heat is definately an issue when your running indoors there no cooling breeze to carry away the body heat, so it will build up. The way the body copes with increased body heat is to pump blood through the small capiliaries that lie under the skin in atempt to carry the core body heat to the surface of the skin. If this heat doesn't excape, core temperature increases and so more blood gets pumped to the skins surface. This means that the heart has to work harder hence the cardiac drift
I seem to find that I have a natural level of about 125 to 127 beats per minute at my 9 min/mile pace, which is my comfortable do all day long pace (but not long run pace - thats much slower - 9.30 to 10 pace)
Incidentally - my resting is 34 and max 160, I'm 16.5 stone and 44 years old and have been running for some years - I currenty run about 30 miles per week, and whilst this is a new intensity for me I am coping (apparently) with it.
I am tryng to gauge my performance improvement using the HRM and am completing a detailed running log. My drift is causing a variable that I hadn't banked on and don't know whether I should factor in to the MHR for a particular work out or not.
Calling BR! I would be interested in your cardiace drift and what you reckon is acceptable (or not). You have done a few times 3x 5k, right? Can you give us an insight into you huge data archive of HR samples?
OK - Tom
I think the idea is that if you run at (say) 155-160 for a phase, your pace at that HR will increase. Then you move up to 160-165 etc. If you were to jump straight in to 85%, then you would train yourself not to drift at that intensity, but not at as fast a pace having done all the patient / boring (delete according to taste) stuff first.
URR / Captain. I find a HR drift of 5pm is within limits over a 3x5k session.
Another factor for the drift is low muscle glycogen - where basically you haven't taken in enough carbs to sustain the relationship.
And how does the drift in HR convert into the 5k time, obviously you aim at even sets, does it actually convert 1:1?
Take a look at SiT's post on the daily thread for an aerobic monster!
Sorry to be a numpty Grumpy here - but what do you guys mean by "even sets" ??
When I get time I will sit religiously and read MMs full account of the subject to see if I can make full sense of it all. In the mean time I am grateful for advice and will let you guys have your thread back - well for the time being anyway !??
This Swain relationship isn't universal is it? MHR declines with age, VO2max can be increased with training as can lactate threshold. If this relationship is dependant on the individual, it becomes very difficult for the individual to estimate his HR which corresponds to a 70% of VO2 (the recommended starting point for base training). Hadd gets round this by using yet another rule of thumb, MHR less 50bpm (or is it actually 193 - 50 bpm), hardly scientific.
The other problem in the relationship between MHR and VO2max is that we may fall into the trap that they are synonymous with each other. Vo2max does not occure at MHR either. There certainly seem to be a lot of base trainers who train at an "entry level" of 70% of MHR, whereas Hadd quotes the optimum from the published literature as being 70% VO2max, but actually recommends an actual HR of MHR minus 50. Or to put an other way, where did the 70% of MHR come from?
The 3x 5km pace at 160-165 at the moment would be something close to expected mara pace plus 20 secs per km me so way slower than 10 mile pace. Will begin now to increase hr I am doing these at until am completely comfortable at mara pace and then move to 4 x 5km and then begin on shorter more intense stuff.
Simon