HADD Training Method

18788909293109

Comments

  • Haven't run a marathon using HR monitor but did do the Yorkshire 10 miler earlier this year which was flat.

    I ran it as a progression run from start to finish

    my average pace was 7.56 with an average HR of 155 (88/89%)

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    You may be running marathons to pace (I do too these days)... but do you have a HR monitor on so you can look at the numbers afterwards? I just can't envisage what % maxHR you're doing at 8:10/m (MP) and 6:53/mi (10KP) if you are already at 80% at 9:20/m. Lactate threshold is about 87% maxHR and you can't really run more than an hour at that pace.

  • Unfortunately, I've not worn a HR monitor for marathon. Which is a shame as it would have given some useful info.

    Dan. Yeah, I seem to be around 9.20/m at 80% and 7.56/m at 88%. I guess this suggests my marathon 8.15 /m was probably around 85/86%

    Is this possible? am I just shite at slower paces? or is it likely my max is 5bpm or so higher than I think?

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Iain, what is your everyday 70% pace?
  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    To me it feels like you have under-estimated your maxHR.

    Based on your 10K PB, your LT pace (sustainable for no more than 1 hour) should be about 7 min/mile ... that's around 88% maxHR ... and based on that, you should be able to run 7:30/m at about 83% maxHR (your "ideal" MP).

    9:20/m would be more like your 70% maxHR pace ... 7:45 more like you 80% subLT pace.

  • Can't really run at 70% (based on my current calculations) but I would imagine it's around 10 -10.20 m/m. I walk at 65%

     

    Just looked at some 800m intervals I did on the track with HR monitor on. They show 7.0m/m pace at 158bpm (92%)

  • Dan. I think you might be right, although 7m/m for LT might be slightly ambitious based on my pb.

    In terms of feel and experience of doing tempo runs, 7.25 m/m seems right for my LT pace. And given my 800m stats above that ties in.

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    800m is tricky for average HR values as it takes half the time to get up to the average value. Mine average at or just below LT heart rate even though I'm going much faster.

    Your max could well be something more like like 182 bpm.

    So 127 bpm for 70%

    145-150 for subLT

    160 bpm for LT

    168 bpm for 5K

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    cross-post ... LT is a nasty pace (hardly comfortable) ... I can only do it for 1 hour if in race conditions (i.e. by going too hard in a 10 miel race ... and then dying for teh last 2-3 miles). Much prefer hadd's sub-LT pace (comfortably hard).

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    Agree that 7:25/m would be a good sub-LT pace for you.

  • I think you might be close with that deduction, Dan. All I can say is that the paces I would run matching those heart rates 'feel' right. And if you are right, it just means I've been doing my easy runs at around 75% rather than 81%....which is good, right?

    The paces would also tie in with a couple of VDOT calculators online.

    So I think I need to adjust my MHR to my experience and paces, which I know shouldn't be the way, but it just seems more realistic

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    Sounds good to me Iain!image

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Iain, that was Dan's detective work. Nothing to do with me.



    Well anyway, I did the test last night. The wind had weakened somewhat, but was still windy. Not wanting to push it off, (snow forecast for tonight,) I went ahead with it. I'm not pleased with the results.



    For comparison, here's the last test from Nov 30.



    Target HR - %max HR - ave HR - ave pace

    130 - 67% - 132 - 8:55 (couldn't keep it down)

    140 - 73% - 140 - 8:37 (easy)

    150 - 78% - 150 - 7:53 (working)

    160 - 83% - 159 - 7:22 (LT must be around here (est 163/4)

    170 - 88% - 168 - 6:59 (hard)

    180 - 93% - 176 - 6:40 (only reached 180 at the end. Excruciating!)



    Here's the current:



    130 - 67% - 131 - 9:13 (jogging)

    140 - 73% - 140 - 8:47 (easy)

    150 - 78% - 150 - 7:57 (moving)

    160 - 83% - 160 - 7:35 (getting to work)

    170 - 88% - 170 - 6:49 (must be just above LT. 167?)

    180 - 93% - 179 - 6:48 ('easier' to reach & maintain. Very very hard)



    So, most were actually slower than last time. On the plus side, I managed to nail the intensities very well. All intensities were easier than last time. What's puzzling is the final interval, which was only one second faster than the previous, yet I was at the correct HR and shows clearly on the graph!



    So, this was a bad one. Better luck next time...
  • Sols2

    I was thinking of doing a similar thing after a WU on a track, using 1 lap to establish and stay on the relevant HR then do 4 laps (1 mile), followed by an additional 1 lap to establish and fix on next higher HR and then another 4 laps etc.

    Do you think it's important to rest between each step up?

     

    Also, isn't LT around 88/89% ?

  • Is there merit in doing a 1 mile time trial at 83% (potentially your best possible MP) around a track every 4 weeks during marathon training to track progress and in the end pin down your race pace?

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Iain, here's a quote from The Document:



    Elsewhere, on another thread, I had explained why I liked the period in lactate tests to be a minimum of 8 mins long. I have long used a protocol that consists of repeat runs over 2400m at slowly increasing intensities (with pauses after each period to draw blood). (Note: you really should have followed and read the lactate link I put up earlier to be able to fully understand the discussion from this point on. Don't worry, it's not difficult and it's well worth the read).



    ??

    Once Joe got to 50mpw, I told him to perform the following mini-test (he knew the protocol). Go to a track on a windless day, as rested as if for a race, and do the following:



    Run 2400m at a steady 140 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

    Run 2400m at a steady 150 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

    Run 2400m at a steady 160 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

    Run 2400m at a steady 170 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

    Run 2400m at a steady 180 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)



    At all times, adjust the running pace to maintain a stable HR. On each new stage slowly edge the HR up (ie: it is ok if the HR takes the first 600-800m to reach target level), then simply maintain HR. DO NOT start fast and have to slow to maintain target HR.



    And then later, (page 23):



    2. Perform a 2400m test on yourself (from easy training pace to a max of 5bpm higher than your particular HRmarathon- see below).. Once again ensuring you are fit, fresh, rested as if for an important race and all possible variables (wind, etc) are controlled as much as possible. Since you are going to conduct this 2400m test again and again, you must try and ensure that, as much as possible, all tests are done under near identical conditions (or else you start wondering such thoughts as, "am I faster because it was less windy this time?"). Do all you can to control against such doubts having to occur (ie: don't test in gale force winds).



    (Here is where I went wrong, obviously. The wind was too strong. I thought it wouldn't have such an effect, but I was clearly mistaken!)



    Because the first interval begins at easy training pace (~72%) and the next level up still easy-ish, it has a built-in warm up.



    You might find that one lap will not be enough to slowly work up to the target intensities, especially on the latter two.



    I think that the 90 second breaks (I use walk breaks) are essential. There's no way I could run a mile at 5k pace (170bpm - 6:49/m), immediately seguing into mile pace intensity (180bpm).



    LT can be anywhere from 65% to 95%.
  • Sol2

    Thanks for that. Really interesting

  • I take it you went further than the recommended  'to a max of 5bpm higher than your particular HRmarathon' ?

  • Dr.Dan wrote (see)

    cross-post ... LT is a nasty pace (hardly comfortable) ... I can only do it for 1 hour if in race conditions (i.e. by going too hard in a 10 miel race ... and then dying for teh last 2-3 miles). Much prefer hadd's sub-LT pace (comfortably hard).

    Totally agree. I used to train with P&D and they have LT runs up to 7 miles in their plans image  sub LT (80%) is a fantastic pace. You work hard and you achieve a lot but you don't feel like death.

    BTW, thanks for the kudos a few pages back - I feel a bit embarrassed image  I don't think my PBs are that impressive or that I'm particularly fast image   If I can manage another marathon around the 3:30 mark I shall be very happy image 

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    "is there merit in doing a 1 mile time trial at 83% (potentially your best possible MP) around a track every 4 weeks during marathon training to track progress and in the end pin down your race pace?"



    First, if you perform the 2400m test, the final intensity correlates to (what was, six months ago,) my mile pace. In time, hopefully, this will be more like 5k pace. So your proposed mile To is not necessary. Besides, what will mile pace teach you in marathon training? Another besides, with this training, the paces keep on improving, so what is mile pace now, or 5kP or 10k, etc, will not be the same in 2 months.



    Here's another quote from The Document:



    I have taken enough lactate measurements and had people wear HRM's in marathons (even Joe himself, years earlier) that I was able to tell him that based on this HRmax (193)his best marathon HR would be 175-177. Higher than this would not be possible/sustainable. (Note; I just got them to wear them for my information purposes, not to use as a race-pace guide, a practice I do not agree with).



    A few days after this HRmax test, I got Joe to run his first 2400m test on 11 May. If you check back at Joe's results, you will note that the speed at 170 was only 6.05m/m.



    For reasons of cardiac drift, I had learned that the pace at 170 in the test would pretty accurately reflect the running pace he would maintain for a marathon (assuming he was trained well) even though in the race his HR would climb to 175-177. This because for 2400m he is not having heat dispersal problems such as he will encounter if he keeps up such a pace for 2hrs+. So, assuming proper training, the pace at 170 HR (for Joe) in the 2400m test equals pace in the marathon at 175-177 HR (in other words, his best marathon pace/effort).
  • Sol2

    I meant that if 83%MHR is a realistic level of intensity for non elites to maintain for a marathon, then running a mile around a flat track at that level will tell you what m/m pace it equates to. Then hopefully the next time you perform it (4 weeks later) you'll see improvements. If you continue in this manner and do your last test near to your marathon, you'll have an idea where you're at for the race.

    Just trying to find a good way to know on the day of the race what would be my best, realistic maintainable pace.

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Iain, please read the quote above. 170 is what Hadd reckoned would be a sustainable marathon pace intensity. That, for him was about 77-78% maxHR. If you do the tests regularly, every 6 weeks, you'll find all of your paces, not only marathon pace.
  • Isn't 170bpm  88% maxHR for Joe ?

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Sorry, yes you're right.
  • SHADESSHADES ✭✭✭✭

    Sol2 - sorry that your Hadd test didn't give you the results you were hoping for.   I would put that down to the wind, it makes such a difference.

    When I did my last Hadd test, I decided to do it at fairly short notice when I noticed that there was no wind forecast for that time of day.    As I did the test round a housing estate a couple of laps I noticed a slight headwind, I was really cross as I expected not to feel any wind at all.   As soon as I got home I looked on the internet and the wind was 4mph, I'm sure it didn't slow me at all but I could still feel it.   I'm sure even a 10mph wind could have an effect on test results.

  • So with the HAAD example of Joe above, the message is that whatever marathon pace/HR you decide is optimum for you, it must allow for the cardiac drift that will occur during the race

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭
    chicksta wrote (see)
    Dr.Dan wrote (see)

    cross-post ... LT is a nasty pace (hardly comfortable) ... I can only do it for 1 hour if in race conditions (i.e. by going too hard in a 10 miel race ... and then dying for teh last 2-3 miles). Much prefer hadd's sub-LT pace (comfortably hard).

    Totally agree. I used to train with P&D and they have LT runs up to 7 miles in their plans image  sub LT (80%) is a fantastic pace. You work hard and you achieve a lot but you don't feel like death.

     

    Yep, it was when I did P&D that I used a 10 mile race to do that 7 mile LT session ... couldn't have done it on my own. Mind you, the last 3 miles were miserable.

    Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

    Is there merit in doing a 1 mile time trial at 83% (potentially your best possible MP) around a track every 4 weeks during marathon training to track progress and in the end pin down your race pace?

    As posted, the "hadd test" is the official way to do this. Running 1 mile at 83% won't tell you much ... it will be a very fast pace because you are fresh.

    Personally, I just do the sub-LT 10 mile 80% run on a 1 mile circuit. Average pace and the extent to how much I slow at the same HR, over each identical loop, tells me whether I'm improving. When I do these runs, I set off at my expected average pace ... HR tends to be well below 80% for the first mile but then creeps up to 80%, after which I modify pace to stay at this HR. Setting off at 80% results in the pace being too hard at the start.

  • Thanks Dan

    How do you actually pin down your own best marathon HR pace?

    In the Hadd example of Joe, the coach says with his experience Joe's best marathon pace would be 177/178 (92% of his 193HRM), but in practice to allow for cardiac drift it would be more like 170 (88%). Dan -you quote 83% as *ideal* but in practice for you it's (if I remember correctly) 78%.

    A massive variation between people, and I can see how the offical Haad test tracks progress.

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Shades, thanks for your encouragement. I didn't think that the wind would have such an effect. Lesson learned!



    It was not all for naught, though. The upper intensities were easier to reach and maintain than previously, as indicated by the average HRs for each interval. I did not feel any lactic acid at 160, and only slightly at 170. Compared to the previous test, this means a rise in LT. The 180, while no picnic, and I couldn't have continued on at that pace any longer, at least I didn't feel like I was dying! So, much better.



    Iain, Hadd says the second-highest intensity is marathon pace. Knowing that HRs will rise during the race. But only for the well trained.



    I'm not (yet) well trained and I think I might manage a 10k at this pace. I have one next month that I was pressured into signing up, so I'll see there. But by the autumn, I'd really like to race a Half at this pace. With yet more improvements to come. Exciting prospects!



    How do you choose a race pace, whilst still not yet fully aerobically trained? I don't know, but the others here can chime in with their superior (and personally experienced) knowledge.
Sign In or Register to comment.