Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Why is the emphasis on Cardiac sdrift so important
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
I do think that you can get very acceptable results at 1500-10000m with 60-75 mins a day of 80-85% running. Just to give an idea of how effective that can be, let's use the Hadd pedagogical technique, and look at the case of a particular 21-year old runner, we'll call him "Me".
Me ran a 14:37 5K off of about 60-70mpw of Tom-ish training when he was 19. He than had a lot of injury troubles, had to train less, but still threw down a couple PRs in the 10K and mile when he was 20. But then injury troubles struck again, and finally in the summer of 2004, Me threw in the towel. His next 9 months looked like this:
May/June/July/August - Me ran about 10 miles total.
Sep/Oct/Nov - Me ran for about 7-8 weeks total, at 30-40mpw.
Dec/Jan - Me did not run at all.
Finally me started running every other day in February, and in March he started running every day, for about 50 minutes a day. He ran these runs at 80-85% pace. He would always go slightly anaerobic at the end, but it was fairly comfortable running.
This running continued all the way through April. During this time, Me only did 3-4 runs of more than 60 minutes, and also had to substitute about 10 elliptical workouts (again, at a high-end, 85% effort) for training runs.
At the beginning of May, Me ran a 14:40 5K, in extremely poor conditions. He was extremely happy with the result, and he ran much better than his friends who ran very high mileage and a lot of intervals. The moral of the story? Especially for someone who has run a decent amount before, this is a GREAT way to throw down fast times and get in shape quickly.
What happened to Me? Unfortunately, we will never know what would've happened if he had continued this type of training. In June he switched to Hadd-style training, as he wanted to begin preparing for a marathon a couple years down the road. However, Me has far more time to run than the average runner.
For the average runner, running lots of runs at 80-85% effort (although they will have to be shorter) is a very good option. I would caution though, that a big part of this program is MAKING ABSOLUTELY SURE that the athlete does NOT do many interval workouts, as the combined fatigue will usually be too much.
I think (again, this is only anecdotal experience) that you get more "bang for your buck" when you do some sort of fartlek or tempo, a bit longer, and a bit slower. Give it a try for 7-8 or weeks, and see what happens. I think this method lets you achieve more in less training time, which seems to be what you're after.
One way to do this is a method that I used during a separate comeback from low training in 2003. I would do the interval workouts with friends, but run the intervals with the slower people, and during the rests I would keep running running at about 5:40-6 min pace (80-85% for me).
Ciao,
TG
"One of the key elements of base training as advocated by Hadd, is the emphasis on controling cardiac drift. .... Why is this so important."
I see that BR and Timmy have already written a lot on the subject, but I'll offer some thoughts from my perspective.
For reference, I'm 40, and I started following Hadd's training approach fairly carefully about two years ago, after "dabbling" with it for a year before that.
What Hadd described in the "monster thread" he wrote at Letsrun.com was his approach to base training. this is an important point. He didn't attempt to describe all elements of successful distance training - rather he simply described, in some detail, how one should prepare them self for the rigours of harder training and racing by first optimizing their aerobic fitness, BEFORE they start to work on other elements of their fitness.
In fact, at the very end of that thread, he wrote this: "At that point (meaning when you'd reached the point where you could run 60-75 min @ 88-90% HRmax with no drift in HR or fade in pace), and not until then, you can decide whether to aim for a marathon, or to build on top of this aerobic base to aim for some shorter race distances."
So to get back to Tom's question - do you really need to work on controlling HR drift at low HRs? Well, I guess that depends on whether you really want to optimize your running performance, which requires excellent aerobic fitness.
If you can't master a given easy effort (ie HR level, say 75% for example) without having to slow down, you will NEVER control HR drift at the higher efforts (like 88-90%, or marathon effort). I can't give a physiological explanation for this (I'm an engineer, not an exercise physiologist), but Hadd goes to great lengths to explain it in the monster thread, and I can tell you from personal experience that this is the only way to get there.
So you might then ask - well, so what if I can't keep my HR under control at M-pace? Well, so what indeed. Again, with no theoretical basis, all I can tell you is that once you CAN do that, you are an aerobic monster. When you run a race (any race from 1500 to marathon) you will feel unbelievably stronger than you did before. You will be able to surge in races, or run hard up hills, and then recover very quickly mid race. Your body will be burning a higher proportion of fat (rather than glycogen) than before, and thus producing less lactate, so you will feel more comfortable at all paces than you ever did before.
More comfortable = more potential to run faster
So, speaking from experience (I used to run fast all of the time, and managed to improve quite a bit that way over 10-15 years of running, but had plateaued for a couple of years before trying Hadd's approach, which has jump-started my running and changed me from a decent local runner to a verging national class master), I say it's well worth holding back and keeping the HR under control when you're trying to do Hadd's form of base training.
As a final thought, I feel, like Timmy, that I need to highlight, again, that Hadd's approach is not (I repeat - NOT) about slow running. Most days are run at an easy pace (my easy days are usually 7:30-8:00 pace, and often 9:30-10:00 when running with my wife or son), but two days a week, you work on harder aerobic efforts, and another day run a little longer. As you progress, the work sessions become very demanding.
OK, I've gone on too long. I should just add, though, that I was a huge cynic until I tried this properly. Now I just don't understand why everyone doesn't train this way.
BR's earlier posting rankled a bit: '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.'
I would say I am just as hung up/focused on getting the most out of myself as many other posters on these threads. What I lack is the time to train 7 days per week. Of course, I accept that I probably won't get as much out of myself as if I were able to train 7 days a week but what I would like to know is whether Hadd-style training can be successful applied to a runner with more limited time available to train. I have previously shied away from it as although I am convinced of its success, I am cynical about its application to those of us who 'insist on training for a marathon or HM on 5 days per week.'
I have had a lot of suggestions on another thread on how best to cram more miles into an already-packed week, including moving house/job so I don't have to commute 2.5-3 hours a day, but I would like to know how to apply Hadd's principles to about 40 miles a week - and whether it's worth it.
For the record, I've seen some good improvements just on smallish increases in weekly mileage. I currently do most of my running anywhere between 8:20 and 9:20 pace and reduced my 10K PB from 51:34 to 46:03 this weekend. My marathon PB is 3:40 from London in April (improvement of 21 minutes from FLM 2004). My goal is to get faster on the mileage I'm able to run but I'm not convinced by the standard 'diet' of varied paces and speedwork - my training to date has not included any kind of formal speed training.
I'd be interested in your views. I may not have the time to train that many of you do, but I am fiercely determined and dedicated in spite of my limitations.
I am keen to read more for myself.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=308471
I include this as there is lots of other stuff you have find interesting.
here's the link. It's a long read, but it's mostly easy reading.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=91048&thread=91048
Minks,
there's definitely more than one way to skin a cat. Lots of different ways to improve your running performance. If you really want to OPTIMIZE your running performance, meaning reach your personal ultimate potential, then I don't believe, unfortunately, that you can do that running 40-50 mpw. I do believe that Hadd's approach is an excellent way to get there. I also believe there are many other ways to get there, as, evidently, the Bekele's and Radcliffe's of this world aren't (I don't think) following his approach. However, I do know a large group of runners who are making significant gains following his approach. But alas, his approach, strictly speaking, involves running 7 days a week.
Does this mean you can't train to get (much) better on 40-50 mpw? Hell, no. Many people improve substantially while training at those levels. I've done so myself.
Can you adapt Hadd's approach successfully within that sort of framework? Well, frankly, I don't know, as it's outside my experience, and if you'll recall, the "guts" of his approach (ie incorporating the work sessions) STARTS once you can comfortably run 7 days per week, or roughly 50 mpw, at 75% HRmax without seeing any drift in HR.
Do I think you can adapt his approach with low(er) mileage? I suspect you can still gain a lot of the benefits of his approach on less mileage. In fact, I have my wife following a variation of his approach to prepare for her second marathon (the HRM doesn't work for her, as her heart flips into a new rhythm at higher HRs), and the highest mileage she's run has been 53 mpw, just the once. I fully expect she'll take a big chunk off her year old mark.
If I were to try to make a suggestion to someone in your situation who WANTED to try Hadd's approach, I'd suggest, firts and foremost, that you start running your easy days at a very easy pace (less than 75% HRmax, or, alternatively, M-pace plus 60-120s/mile), and work in two work sessions per week.
The work sessions should start small, at moderate effort, and build up in length and effort over the course of time, just as Hadd describes at length in the monster thread. The goal would still be to get to 60-75 minutes at 88-90% HRmax with no fade in pace. That would be when you know you're ready (really ready) to aim for a marathon. It might take longer trying to get there on lower mileage, and the pace you can run at that effort might not be the best you could ultimately achieve, but I think you could still work in that direction.
I don't know enough about Hadd to answer your question properly but I do remember that the "entry point" for "Joe" in the Hadd thread was 50 miles/week. Hadd told him to go away and build his mileage up to 50/week before he could start with Hadd. So I suspect the answer is no.
In any case, whatever training methods you employ, you're unlikely in my opinion to be able to get the best out of yourself in a marathon if 40 miles/week is all you have time for. It is a long way, after all.
I have however run a 3:04 marathon on that mileage and I concentrated on doing a weekly long run of 16 miles or more. All my other mileage I did when I had the time. Most of it was shorter runs at/near lactate threshold.
You may see base training benifits on,e.g. 50 mpw, but as the milage is lowered you are less likely to. Personally, I saw big gains on 55 mpw taking my marathon time down from 3:20 (was stuck there for 18 months) to 3:09.
Once you have stopped improving on your existing mix of speedwork/tempo/long run, then why not give it ago and see what happens ??
Grumps - I did search letsrun.com but came up with hundreds of results for Hadd and John Hadd.
The bottom line then is that no-one can be sure whether/how well the Hadd approach can be successful at lower weekly mileages because it hasn't been tried (or if it has, there is no available information).
I would tend to agree though, from my understanding of how Hadd's methods work, that it is unlikely to be as successful at lower mileages, and I would also concur that I probably won't ever fully optimise my running performance only being able to manage 40-odd miles per week. But unless my circumstances change, I'll have to live with that and continue to look for ways to get the best out of myself on what I am able to realistically fit in to the rest of my life.
JJ's post above advised Minks to putting in some 20milers due to Minks not being able to run 7 days a week.
What's your opinion on the relevance of these LSR 20+ miler runs for a runner who has the time to run seven days a week? Like if you're running 60-80 mins for four days, plus the two work session days, do you always run the LSR for (say) a fixed 120mins only?
From the Hadd mega-thread, I never quite grasped, why did Hadd make Joe do that 2400m test at various HRs if from your posts the emphasis is on %tage of MaxHR?
Thanks for your input.
I hadn't thought of standard marathon schedules in that way before but you're absolutely right. I also agree that if you are limited by time there will always have to be a degree of compromise when it comes to marathon training, and accept that your 'best' may not be your TRUE best were the limiting factors to be removed.
I guess that means that many of us never have the opportunity to really discover our full potential as runners because the need to compromise always gets in the way. I'll continue to juggle the work/life/running balance as best I can, and will probably always wonder, "What if ...?"
What sort of sessions have you used, JJ? A mix of long runs, tempo, speedwork etc. as most 'standard' schedules advocate?
I am another 'recreational' runner who wants to get the most out of a limited amount of training. I accept that this will not bring out my full potential but I have other desires in life in addition to running.
To be able to answer your question: is it worthwhile addapting Hadd style training to a lower mileage? you have to ask: how does Hadd training work? As cardiac drift is such a key measure for Hadd, you need to know: What causes cardiac drift? and What physiological effect of the training is causing cardiac drift to be reduced?
When you understand the answers to these questions, you will know whether this style of training can be effective at lower mileage, whilst accepting that it may never achieve the same benefits of higher mileage.
Alas, I do not have the answers. Whenever I have asked I just get the stock: It just works, or It works for me, I did nahda nahda...
There seems to be no deep understanding. Anecdotal 'evidence' is not the answer.
Like you, I admit, getting the time to train is difficult.
However, I could just as well take your post, put it into the context of "'standard' schedules" and "long runs, tempo, speedwork" and the questions would still remain outstanding.