Why is the emphasis on Cardiac sdrift so important

1356

Comments

  • nrg-b wrote: "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?"

    In answer to the first part, Hadd is more keen on the quality of the work sessions than the exact duration of the long run. Having said that, the long run will normally vary between 90-120 minutes early in the program (say 90-115-120 on a three week rotation) and 120-150 (2:00-2:15-2:30 rotation) later in the program (closer to marathon prep).

    I don't quite understand the point of your second question, but the 2400m test is basically a poor man's lactate test. Your perceptions of effort during this workout are every bit as important as the pace you run at each progressive HR, and tell as much.

    On a side note, I've never done a 2400 test, because you can get the same kind of information from race results, or from the harder work sessions. The test does, however, give you a measurable sense of progress as you go, and is useful for some people.
  • nrg-bnrg-b ✭✭✭
    PeteQ: Cool - I appreciate your answers. Thanks.
  • Minks - no offence meant. I meant hung up/ focused as a difference between people who can't find the time for more than 5 runs per week and those who can. Hence `hung up' to describe people like myself. If other things like work and a more balanced life take priority it means you aren't as hung up as running and maybe have a healthier all round perspective than I have.

    Pete has made a good attempt at answering the question as to whether Hadd's principles would work on 50mpw. I can't connect the two as one of Hadd's first principles is 50mpw is a starting point. It's a bit like asking which sort of rock band should you have formed in Soviet Russia - the two don't go together much.
  • MinksMinks ✭✭✭
    BR, no offence taken. The difficulty I have is reconciling the 'hung up' side of my personality which screams to be let out with the side that tries to keep running in its box alongside the other factors competing for my time and attention.

    One of Hadd's first principles is a 50mpw starting point - which means that there is no 'data' (for want of a better word) on whether this type of training approach can be successfully adapted for those who run less than this. So basically there's no real answer to my original question as it falls outside the scope of Hadd's approach and anyone who's successfully used it.

    JJ, so far I have tended to follow schedules similar to the one you have pointed out. As you say, they can be adapted to suit - I usually end up tweaking them a bit myself. My only 'rule' is that I try to make sure I do every session - I have managed this so far - as I believe in consistency.
  • I can't believe how civil this discussion has been. They never stay that way for long over at LR...
  • I think most of us are out of high school and don't live with our parents.

    LR on the other hand...:-)

    We've had a few Hadd wars on here before, so some of the main protagonists haven't posted on here.

    Yet...
  • JJ wrote: "One day, when I retire, I may try Hadd properly. After all, its roughly what makes Ed Whitlock so quick at V74. I've got 9 years to go yet."

    Well, I think the only real similarity between Ed's training and Hadd's approach is the foundation of lots of easy running to build aerobic fitness. But at that point, they diverge fairly dramatically.

    From what I've read, Ed does all of his training runs fairly easy (and long - 3 hrs per day around a graveyard at about 8 m/m pace). But he doesn't do any workouts at all, and rather races himself into shape.

    Hadd's approach includes a high volume of running with a lot of easy miles, but there's a methodical, progressive buildup at different effort levels to get you ready to get yourself in race shape.

    But, obviously, what Ed does is CLEARLY working for Ed, so again, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

    PS - I've seen Ed run, at the Cabot Trail Relay this spring. I only HOPE I look as smooth running at 50 as he does at 70+
  • I always get depressed reading these threads! As someone firmly in the Minks camp of not having time to do 50mpw plus, it's not great reading that I'll never get near my potential. But I can see it's likely to be the case.
    What is most galling is that, if I knew that following the Hadd methodology (having taken a month first to try and understand everything!) would enable me to take my 10K time down 4-5 minutes, maybe, just maybe, I'd change my life and do it. But to go from a moderate ability level to a slightly better ability level, wouldn't be worth it, for me.

    I just wonder: I can see that there is a clear basis for the toothpaste tube, but what always makes me wonder whether there is a point being missed is the many high quality runners I know who don't train that way.

    Sorry, that isn't really about cardiac drift (or perhaps anything in particular).
  • Come on, LR is civilised compared to UAUK, which is bordering on libelous most of the time.

    Interesting observation made about most marathon plans being middle distance training with a number of 20 milers thrown in. This is exactly what I did for my first marathon with a return of 2:35. Last year (3rd marathon) I followed something closer to Hadd (but not exactly) just focussed more on the volume and ended up with 2:30.
  • Seems that a lot (majority ?) of runners here have a ceiling of around 50mpw in order to fit in the rest of their life. That`s the case with me and I fully see the logic in it.

    However, I don`t see why the Hadd approach should not work for increasing mileage up to that level. Eg if you go from 25 up to 50. Just because Joe`s entry point is at 50 does not invalidate the approach of progressive, mainly aerobic training at lower volumes. I agree that 45 to 50 is going to be an insignificant jump but plenty of people have headroom to increase mileage.

    Of course mileage is only 1 way of keeping score. I prefer time run since that is independant of speed.
  • Quick side question - is the emphasis on mpw correct for slower runners? Is 50mpw is the minimum for everyone regardless of whether they are targetting 2:30, 3, 3:30, etc ? Is the target settable in terms of hours spent running rather than distance covered?
  • "Is the target settable in terms of hours spent running rather than distance covered?"

    If you're asking this question in reference to Hadd's approach, he made NO mention of mileage (or very little) in the monster thread. The weekly progression he gave was always in terms of time running.
  • Thanks (and thanks also for the links to the original thread a few pages ago -although it has mildly interfered with me doing some work today!).

    From this:
    - if Joe is aiming for sub 2:30 and was doing mileages of 50, building to 80 (via some 100+ weeks),
    - then for a 3:30 runner (0.7 times as quick) that maps to minimum mileages of 35, building to 57 (via some 70+ weeks)

    Is that too simplistic?
  • I would say that sounds like a reasonable interpretation to me.
  • Well, lemme maybe edit that a little, because I know two runners who are "better" than Joe (both 2:20ish potential), that Hadd has training at 95-115 mpw.

    If you follow the program per the monster thread, and you're a 3:30 runner, the early stages would probably have you running the mileages you've quoted, and maybe that would be all you'll need. But don't set an upper limit unless you need to (and many of us do, for time constraints, injury concerns etc), would be my suggestion.
  • JFB, you asked:
    "I just wonder: I can see that there is a clear basis for the toothpaste tube, but what always makes me wonder whether there is a point being missed is the many high quality runners I know who don't train that way."

    This is a great question, and having run with and worked with decently high quality runners, I think that the answer is fairly simple. Most talented people, especially in their teens/early twenties, will improve dramatically as long as they stay consistent, and don't fatigue themselves too much. So given that, you'll get tons of people improving, and they'll attribute success to whatever random program helped them avoid injury and stay fresh.

    Now, here's where the toothpaste analogy works perfectly. These runners have been able to run 5000m's under 15, under 14:30, or under 14, just based on the fact that they have a LOT of toothpaste. So they start in the middle, and just squirt out a nice big handful (apologies for the sexual direction this is taking, but I DO frequent Letsrun :)). For example, when I was 20, I found out that I could almost make collegiate nationals in cross country, just by running 50-60mpw pretty hard. I had a lot of toothpaste, and it didn't really matter where I squeezed, I just paid a lot of attention to staying fresh from day to day.

    Where people in the States start to run out of toothpaste is when they want to become elite in the marathon, or even the 5000m. We don't have many Americans who can break 2:12, whereas a country like Japan, who put a LOT of emphasis on squeezing out every last drop has many such marathoners.

    Even in the 5000m, I remember reading something awhile back (I'll find a link) about what Mark Carroll, the Irish middle distance runner, did once he graduated university. He went back to square one, and spent two years working solely on his aerobic development. This was after an extremely successful career at the collegiate level.

    Hope that answers some things, and obviously my understanding of this question is still growing, so 6 months from now I will probably have revised some of this.
  • Some more excellent questions and posts this evening...

    JFB - having run that 400s session with you earlier this summer, I think you have the speed to run a significantly faster 10k and 10 miles than you have this year. What seems to be missing is a good 70-80mpw base. I know your work doesn't allow this but more miles would see you jump a level.

    Confused / Minks /JJ. I've had a further think about the 50mpw runner. I have a clubmate who posts on the daily thread who had been running 35-40mpw for a few years without much improvement. Acting on me yattering on about Hadd training and training slower to race quicker he's given it a try, does 50mpw on 5 or 6 runs per week and has been knocking chunks off his 10k time this summer. We expect a good HM pb at the end of the month.

    Really, as Hadd said, this is ONE approach to distance training. Read the first page of his preamble when he talks about many different approaches which work just as well. This is just a system he has developed over time which works with a lot of people, particularly those with poor race relationship times.

    I think one thing that has struck me about applying the Hadd approach whilst running for an English Athletic Club is the patient long termism involved. In our club there's always a series of XC races to do, or a relay, or a race all the boys are going to. This approach won't work fully if you want to race every other weekend, like many people do. It's something I've tried to wean myself off but it has been a balancing act. This time round we see what sparing racing brings.
  • BR, I accept that moving the mileage up would see a substantial improvement, and I'm not surprised by the experience of your clubmate. I've seen too many examples of this happening not to accept it. To add one more, my old school friend who ran his first 2 marathons last season (2.24 at FLM) then ran his fastest 5K in the summer for a number of years, and I'm sure the miles from marathon training played a large part in that.

    It also makes more sense when Hadd is not presented as the only viable method of training for what you guys call middle distance running (to me, middle distance is 800m and 1500m!).
  • nrg-bnrg-b ✭✭✭
    I did originally post this link in the Forefeet vs Heelstrike thread but this guy (a 59yr old Pose runner) gives interesting info on how he ran a PR marathon working off a lowHR-based training approach (he voices his thoughts over several posts).
  • CartmanCartman ✭✭✭
    was poking around on LR cos its lunchtime and RW is quiet ;-), and found this post from hadd (relevant to a Q raised earlier in this thread)


    -----
    As I am sure you are aware,it is very possible to overtrain by attempting to train at a (higher) level than suitable. If you are meaning "aerobically" (like the question above, why not just run at 85%...), then your body may adapt to run the new pace/intensity, but you may have done so by using more powerful fibres than required. This is the problem with many runners, they can run 6.00m/m for any amount of training miles, but not maintain that pace for a marathon. The reason being that they are using more powerful fibres to run this pace in 60 min daily runs than they will be able to access for much of the marathon.
    If they had trained smarter, they may well have found that in time they can adapt and be able to run 6.00m/m with slower (more economical) fibres and thus be able to keep it up for 26.2 miles.

    Do you see the difference? If you maximally train your aerobic system it will allow you to run paces that today require the assistance of some anaerobic energy. This will allow you to 1) race faster over shorter distance (you can delay requirement of anaerobic energy till faster paces) b) be more economical over distance and thus able to maintain a higher pace for longer. If you have never done it right, you will be surprised how fast you can run and still have low lactate levels. Just think of it like finding an easier way to do something.

    Note that your body is continuing renewing itself in response to the training stimulus you provide. There is a quick turnover in mitochondria, and new levels are achieved within 6 weeks (with a half life of ~ 1 week). I continue tell people to look for small changes in fitness within 3 weeks and more significant changes within 6 weeks.

    And of course I am not suggesting that good runners go jogging around at 8.00m/m. The example I gave using that time was for runners aiming for 3-3.15 marathons.
  • IMHO Hadd is wrong in stating that it is muscle fibre behaviour that determines whether they can sustain the pace for a long period of time.

    It is cardio fitness - size of heart, thickness of heart muscle wall and mitochondria density that matter most.
    If doing very long dists (greater than 1/2M) ability to store glycogen, ability to process stored fat, resistance to dehydration also come in affect.

    Therefore his basic premise is correct - create the aerobic base, but muscle fibre is not the main determinant as suggested by this quote.

    BR - over to you for thoughts. I will try and post a bit later on the muscle fibre issue separately.
    Also on some interesting observations on Lasse Viren`s heart rate > aerobic condition.
  • Confused,

    I think you're taking this particular quote out of context (which is understandable since it's not contained within its original context). I believe Hadd was simply trying to answer this one particular question in as straightforward a manner as possible.

    If you read the whole discussion thread, you'll find he goes on at some considerable length about all of the other factors you've mentioned. I don't believe he was ever trying to say that recruitment of more slow twitch fibres, on its own, was the main beneficial adaptation - just one of several.
  • Pete,

    Thanks, it is a long time since I read the Hadd thread. As you say, the danger of taking a single quote out of context.

  • Tom.Tom. ✭✭✭
    BR, Running Bear, Aardvark, HC and TimmyG and others

    Many thanks for your really interesting comments and contributions to this. In general there is very little difference in our views.

    My understanding of the Hadd approach is that you start your conditioning program at the lower (65-70%) end of the aerobic zone and concentrate on being able to achieve steady running at this pace without cardiac drift. Once you have achieved this you then introduce runs at a slightly higher HR again aiming to eliminate cardiac drift at this pace. In theory one could repeat this procedure over the whole “base training” period until you get to a situation where you can do all your running at the top end of the aerobic zone without cardiac drift. Practically this is of course not possible, as running day after day at 88-90% MHR will just end up tearing you down. To take account of this, Hadd suggests work sessions of running at the upper end of the aerobic zone, interspersed with days of easier recovery running. The important principle is that the runner doesn’t attempt to do any sessions at this pace until he’s worked his way up through the aerobic zone, controlling cardiac drift as he goes. In addition Hadd’s program, I think, is geared towards preparing marathon runners hence the inclusion of the key work sessions run at marathon pace, which are slower than LT pace. This is I think an important feature of the Hadd approach which differentiates it from other base conditioning programs.

    There are other approaches to developing LT (as Hadd recognises). Daniels suggests tempo runs as close as possible to LT pace, without going anaerobic. He recommends you start the program at LT pace and build up the distance (as opposed to the pace) that can be maintained up to a maximum of about 5 miles. This a far more extreme approach than Hadd, hence the shorter distance involved, and the recommendation that the session is only done once a week. I think Daniels approach is more geared to the demands of the American Collegiate system, and less inclined to take the longer term approach of Hadd and Lydiard.

  • Tom.Tom. ✭✭✭

    My approach is based on Lydiard and is as described by Aardvark - “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.” HC is also correct when he describes my training as “picking up his pace into the run and progressively increasing the pace closer to threshold pace.” The key is not to breach LT, and of course avoid turning all these runs into “burnups”. Realistically one can’t run all sessions at this pace (same reason as Hadd – day after day at this pace will just tear you down), so you need to intersperse the runs at close to LT pace with easier recovery running. On the face of this there isn’t much difference between the two approach. The exception I think is the fact that Lydiard is geared to preparing runners for other distances in addition to the marathon, whilst Hadd’s emphasis is on marathon preparation. For myself, my racing ambitions lie at distances only up to half marathon, which requires running the whole distance at LT pace – hence my preference for the Lydiard approach. Marathon racing is run at sub LT pace, hence the suitability of the Hadd approach. Certainly if I were to train for a marathon, I would look to up the distance (to 120miles a week), slow the pace down and introduce more Marathon Pace Running.

    The common factor to all these approaches is that training is done in the aerobic zone. The main issue is simply the speed at which one chooses, or is able, to do this running. It’s been suggested that Hadds approach is most suited to less experienced runners. Although this is not strictly true, he does base his ideas round the fact that the runners ability to run the longer distances is less developed than the ability to run the shorter distances – hence the need to develop LT. If a runner has a strong speed endurance background and is coming in off strong 10k performances, it is clearly sensible to drop the intensity way down at the start of the pure aerobic phase – essential to avoid injury or burn out. I personally think this is a far better reason to start slowly, than the need to control cardiac drift. The control of cardiac drift at the top end of the aerobic zone is obviously essential, otherwise the runner will be swamped by a tidal wave of lactic acid. However I still need to be convinced that controlling cardiac drift at lower heart rates has any effect on controlling it at higher levels of HR. But as I said above, irrespective of the journey – the destination is more or less the same.

    I think its true to say that the development of distance training methods have been empirical, and that the main contribution of sports science has been to explain, after the event, why these methods work – rather than to develop original training methods that can be taken out and handed over to distance runners to use. If this is so, then most of what drives our adherance to a particular training philosophy is the idea that it “works for me”. However I do think that the more thoughtful and ambitious runner is more likely to evaluate different training methods and equally importantly allow sufficient time to assess whether the chosen approach is effective, before arriving at the “works for me” destination, an I hope some of this is reflected in my comments above.

Sign In or Register to comment.