Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Why is the emphasis on Cardiac sdrift so important
One of the key elements of base training as advocated by Hadd, is the emphasis on controling cardiac drift. This tends to imply that running should initially be undertaken at a pace which is sufficiently slow to ensure that heartrate does not drift upwards during the session - even to the extent that one is virtually walking up hills. Why is this so important. Surely one should be pitching one training speed at a pace which ensures that you don't go anaerobic. This can reasonably be achieved at a pace geared to 80-85% of MHR, whereas the avoiding cardiac drift brigade are tied back to 70-75% MHR plods.
Can someone explain this to an old cynic?
Can someone explain this to an old cynic?
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
Btw, our `plod' last Sunday came out at 74% MHR!
So when it comes to Cardiac drift, its something which does not even come into my training! again, something less to be concerned about whilst out training.
I think you are muddling up three different things here:
1. The benefits of training at low HRs
2. Whether you should walk up hills to maintain a low HR or whether an average HR is sufficient
3. Cardiac drift - which is not the same as HR increases due to hills.
1. I'm not a Hadd fanatic, but I have seen the benefits of running a fair proportion of my miles at a lower HR. Like you, I used to run nearer to my "anaerobic" threshold most of the time. To put it simply, I was not efficient at continuous running at the 70% - 75% HRR levels and, in the past nine months have become a lot more efficient at these rates. In the process, a 75% HRR run averages out at about 7 min 20 per mile nine months ago, but is now 6 min 30 pace. Hardly a plod. I am now able to run below 7 min pace at 70% HRR - previously that was slower than 7 min 30 pace.
2. I agree that the proponents of base training are rather vague about what to do about hills. I have found that the fitter I have become (aerobically), the less I need to worry about hills because my HR now shoots right down after a hill. Previously, the HR took longer to recover. My advice would be to run up a hill steadily using good form, rather than trying to walk or slope up. However, I think it is important to allow the HR to recover below the 70% level as soon as reasonably possible.
3. Cardiac drift is what happens when your HR starts to rise over time when running at a constant speed (assuming no hills and no dehydration effect of hot weather). It's a test of how well trained you are at the pace at which you are running.
You may be an old cynic but are you receptive to new ideas? I used to train like you but I have found the benefit of doing a fair proportion of my training at lower HRs. That's just one part of it though. Each week I still do a tempo run at lactate threshold (around 85% HRR) and a lot of hills.
I think a weakness of concentrating exclusively on HR training is that it can neglect training the body to run at faster speeds - this is important for muscular strength, flexibility and running form.
I hope that helps - or were you just trying to provoke a debate with the base trainers? For what it's worth, I think there's a lot of benefit to be had from of doing at least SOME of your running a lot slower, if not all.
Surely this depends on what HR you're training at!
As far as I can see, the distinctive feature of Hadd's system (as opposed to Lydiard's for example) is that Hadd starts off at low intensity running (70-75% MHR) then gradually moves some of the sessions up into higher HR ranges. For Lydiard, the emphasis is on 'best aerobic pace', ie a fairly consistent effort level below the aerobic threshold. As you get fitter, the effort level will stay the same but the pace will increase.
The common assumption that Hadd's system is all about running at 75% MHR or less doesn't quite square with what I've read of his training methods. Yes, he starts off there, but only for a period of conditioning. After that, more running is introduced at higher HRs with some 70-75% mileage retained for recovery and further aerobic development (this easier running is also there in the Lydiard system).
Hadd talks more about cardiac drift, but as far as I can see both systems address it (Lydiard was probably less aware of it - he did after all develop his methods before HR monitoring became common). It seems to me though that the real difference between the systems is in harder mileage. Lydiard recommended 100mpw at best aerobic pace, plus as much easy running as possible. Hadd has less harder mileage and more easy, even later in the process. This possibly makes Hadd's system more accessible to amateurs without much history of conditioning, and without the luxury of being full-time (I doubt whether there are many of us who manage to fulfil Lydiard's mileage recommendations).
All of this is really a long-winded way of saying you pay your money, you take your choice. Personally, I use elements of both systems: I benefit from Hadd's conditioning phase every so often before returning to the harder training, but in order to get into racing shape I do more mileage (especially long runs) aiming at Lydiard's best aerobic pace. As with any training, keep what works and throw out what doesn't.
You're also right to make the three distinctions that that you do in your opening para. My thread was intended to address the third of these items, namely the importance of controling cardiac drift. But it's also fair to say that I believe that it is more beneficial to train at higher heart rates in the aerobic zone - I've always been pretty transparent on that one.
With regard to cardiac drift, as you say it does tend to move upwards during a run. My view is that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, providing that you don't allow yourself to drift into the anaerobic zone, when you will no longer be stressing your lactic threshold.
Likewise I can't see any harm at training at the upper end of the aerobic zone, providing (and it is a big provision) that you can cope with the level of effort involved. In this respect I view the week's training cycle as a single entity. This means that there is a relationship between each session in that week. It's slightly more complex than hard/easy etc, but the essence of it is that you should arrive back at the same point in the cycle as last week, feeling no more or less tired than last time round. If you can achieve this, it implies that the intensity of your training in balance.
The same thing should work as you push your volume of miles up. You may slow the overall pace down slightly to accomodate the extra mileage run. Again if you get this balance right it should be reflected in the equilibrium of the weekly cycle. For example since introducing doubles four weeks ago, the effort of my evening run has reduced slightly to accomodate the weekly mileage, although as my fitness improves the pace will increase.
You indicate the improvement in your runing pace at the same heart rate. My approach also gives me similar improvements in pace at the same perceived levels of effort.
There's not really that much difference in our approaches. The key similarity is that most of our training is being done in the aerobic zone. The difference is that I run by feel, rather than HRM.
With regard to your red herring about how can I tell the difference between 70-75%, 75-80% or 80-85%, I don’t think its that difficult for an experienced runner. Admittedly I would struggle to tell the difference between 75% and 76%, but I wouldn’t think it that was material.
Also you say our plod came out at 74% MHR, that’s not strictly correct. Since the HRM was wrapped around your wrist, then that’s your reading. Given that I am racing at probably 20-25 sec per mile slower than you, it suggests that my heart rate reading would have been about 78-79% MHR, which suits my objectives adequately. Incidently I doubt if your HR was ticking along at 74% up that last hill - sure as hell, mine wasn't!!
Let's say your 10k and HM times indicate you are capable of running a marathon time of around 2:37 (6m/m).
So you go for a marathon paced training run after a warm up and get the following results (assuming the run is flat and even paced...
1. HR 170 (or 85% MHR for a runner with 200bpm HRmax)
2. 172
3. 172
4. 173
5. 175
6. 176
7. 178
8. 180
9. 181
10. 183
Now that runner will have accomplished his goal of running 10 miles at MP but will not be able to run a 2:37 marathon. Why? Because his HR is already touching 92% by the end of 10 miles. He is running at his lactate threshold already and his HR will continue to increase to unsustainable levels and his pace will have to drop to compensate.
Now let's say the same runner applies the Hadd system of aiming to eliminate cardiac drift and manages to climb from 170 to 175 for those 10 miles. His HR is still under control and he is not accumulating more lactic acid than he can deal with. He is running at the same pace as before, but at less effort. He'll be able to hold his 6m/m pace for longer (hopefully given all other factors are good for 20 miles) before he moves up to 180 in the final 6 miles where the lactic accumulation won't matter so much as he only has another 37 mins to run.
You're right. I meant to say "I think a weakness of concentrating exclusively on low HR training is that it can neglect training the body to run at faster speeds". I was talking about the Hadd approach of starting low and then only moving up after eliminating cardiac drift.
Tom
I think there is a difference in our approach. I am now running relatively a lot of my mileage at HR in the 65-70% HRR range. I suspect from what you say, that you are not. Have you actually tried adding in this type of training to your training mix for any length of time? If so, and it didn't work - fine. If not, why not give it a try?
This is more of a concern to BR's marathoner working on his race pace run, or to a runner running an even pace to work on general aerobic conditioning. If the run sees the HR rising after 1/2 an hour, they are some way off coping with the intensity they are trying to train for. Another runner who trains more like Tom, whose HR increases during his run may just be picking up his pace into the run and progressively increasing the pace closer to threshold pace.
It is therefore only once you've accepted the premise of Hadd that your initial base consists predominantly, if not solely, of even-paced low-intensity aerobic running that cardiac drift becomes so important. If the plan is to increase the intensity in successive training phases, an inability to complete your lowest intensity runs at an even pace without losing control of your HR doesn't bode well for training further down the line.
First, let's get some straw men out of the way. Obviously one's HR goes up on hills. But if you go up a hill, you go down it. For example, today I did a run that had a fairly steep elevation gain over the first 30 minutes, at which point I turned around. So my HRavg was 138 for the first half, and 129 for the second half (my max is 195ish). But the point is that at the end of the run, on the flat, my HR was in the low 130s, so I had controlled drift. I was hitting 150-160 on some of the very steep hills, but then I would recover.
So with that out of the way, let's move on to everyone's big objection to Hadd: intensity.
1. This training is NOT NOT NOT slow LSD for a long base period. It is pushing the aerobic threshold higher, while anchoring that progress with slower running.
2. Hadd training is not just for amateurs. I won't bore you with my autobiographic details, but suffice it to say that I am a fairly decent runner, and Hadd's program pushes me fairly close to my boundaries each week, in terms of fatigue and recovery. I could not do Lydiard mileage while on this program, and have in fact been told by staunch Lydiardites to slow down so that I could run more
Now, this is where cardiac drift comes in. It's not that big a factor on easy runs. If Hadd's training consisted of only easy runs, I would not own a HR monitor. But I use the monitor to "monitor" cardiac drift on more intense sessions. These bi-weekly work sessions now go up to the 80-85% that you love Tom, and will probably go higher in the future.
I've noted in the past (while lurking here) that you question as to why one doesn't just start at 80-85%. I can only answer that question anecdotally. I have, on multiple occasions, trained at 80-85% day in and day out. I was only able to run about 50mpw while training in this way, but it did work. I quickly got into shape after long layoffs, and ran some good times. But there wasn't really anywhere to go from that point. When I tried to up mileage, I became fatigued and injured quickly, and staying at 50/week at 80-85% effort wasn't really getting me anywhere.
Now I can do that 80%+ effort a couple times per week, while running higher mileage (70-90), and consistently improving. Race results have also been good, which was my main worry with running slowly 4-5 days each week.
In fact I've found (again anecdotally) that the slow running has been good for maintenance. On a couple of occasions in the last 4 months, I've had to take 2-3 week breaks from workouts, and have been able to very quickly resume normal training and fitness, after just slow running.
I think BR and Running Bear have addressed most things well, I just wanted to try and clear up some things regarding hills and intensity.
We will all improve with increased mileage, and I agree Hadd will suit some,(particularly those able to devote hours each day to running), but not everyone. I prefer the effort of training to just being on my feet.
The joy of running rather than the science?
Just to clear this up once and for all, I'll use caps to make my point:
HADD DOES NOT ADVOCATE SLOWING YOUR RUNNING CONSIDERABLY ON UPHILLS JUST TO APPEASE THE HR MONITOR. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO WORK HARDER UP HILLS, AND YOU WORK LESS ON DOWNHILLS.
Now we can move on to actual disagreements people have with Hadd, because there are some real ones, and Tom raises many good points here and elsewhere. Just wanted to get the non-issue out of the way.
thankyou
for the bit about hills
its what ive been doing
Treadmill - the joy of running...
Yes I enjoy running. In fact I enjoy it so much I'll do it sensibly so I can enjoy it day in day out, making incremental improvements.
Would you not have got more `joy' had you done the slow aerobic stuff as well and got your marathon time in line with your 10k time?
Hadd is not about big mileage either. The adaptations he speaks of following his method take place optimally for most runners around 85-90mpw.
As to why I try and keep my HR in the right range on runs rather than going with the flow... that is a personal thing. I like to feel in control of what I'm doing.
Johnny J, Barns just said that Hadd rarely advocates running more than 85-90/week. Running 60-80 mins/day (with a long run on weekends), is almost EXACTLY what I did while following his program this summer.
This is extremely frustrating, because with the exception of Tom, most of you do not have any idea what you're referring to when talking about Hadd training, and are projecting on to it everything you know about LSD and plodding.
In answer to the question about Giuseppe, I *think* (don't hold me to this) that other things in life came up and he never did the marathon.
I bet the majority of the population spend at least this much time vegetating in front of the telly all day.
I accept the example you gave on the previous page about the runner who had minimised drift at marathon pace, but why is it that Hadd is so bothered about drift at lower intensities?
"Why can't I just start at marathon pace, and keep working it until I have eliminated cardiac drift at that pace?"
In that case at the end, the problem (in theory) is that you would not have fully trained all the muscle fibers in your legs, and thus your marathon (or half, or 10K) pace would not be as fast as it could be.
The problem with this method in practice is that it hurts a lot.
The old toothpaste analogy...
Got me coat:-))
Seriously, the foundation of Hadd / Lydiard and similar approaches is the element of decent mileage moving on to the higher end aerobic work favoured by Tom.
If a runner wants to devote an hour a day 5 days per week to running, to `do the best they can', I'd suggest looking at middle distance running. Or if they insisted on training for a marathon or HM on 5 days per week then the general club schedule of varied paces and speedwork is the right way for them as they obviously aren't as hung up / focused (delete according to taste) as the runner who wants to train 7 days per week and get the most out of themselves.