HADD Training Method

18889919394109

Comments

  • The trouble with relating HR to pace for marathon training in practice is that unless you do everything around a track or on perfectly flat and wind free areas, you get skewed results. Dan and I live in quite a hilly area so on a long run, even if the ascents and descents even out on a circular route, you would have spent longer going up the hills (with a slower pace and higher HR) than you would going down (faster pace or same pace with lower HR) and then factoring recovery after an ascent.

    So I find than even without taking into account cardiact drift the average HR at the end of a long run is higher than I wanted.

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    image Yep, this is exactly why I do my sub-LT sessions on a 1 mile circuit ... it's the only way to see whether pace is dropping at the same HR. Sometimes I use the tow-pat5h on the canal too.

    As to why I can't hit 80-83% maxHR in a marathon? No idea* ... but it's the reason why my marathon times are so far behind my 5K-HM times. My sub-LT pace over 10 miles very nicely matches my "theoretical" MP (i.e. predicted MP based on shorter races). But in practice I could not sustain this for a marathon ... not even close. It's one reason I started using hadd.

    *well perhaps. I think it's a combination of insufficient training mileage and a fuel metabolism issue. I was very carb-reliant before, but have more recently switched to a low carb high fat approach. I believe this was key to me getting a marathon PB last October, despite low mileage. Since November, I have been very strict with limiting carb intake and think I'm now a fat-burner. I'll start to re-introduce some strategic carbs now but only just enough to fuel hard sessions and races.

  • Or perhaps your HRmax is a little overestimated?

  • I'm going to go to the track on Monday and do the Hadd test (or similar) so I know for definate what my true pace to HR at different intensities currently is.

    I think this has been part of my problem seeing others' HR to pace on this thread. Mine has been based on long runs over variable terrain (and usually finishing 2 miles uphill!)

  • ...this will also provide me with the relationship between HR and pace as each increases. For example: +X seconds/mile for every 1 bpm increase.

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    My lack of ability to run 26.2 miles at 80-83% maxHR is simply a read out of my bad marathon ability. As I said, I was initially drawn the hadd training because of my poor relationship between shorter race times and marathon race times.

    I self-tested my HRmax back in the day, and also had it tested by NHS "stress test" team in 2010 and it was bang on "220 - my age". Since then, I had been taking 1 bpm off each year ... but last August I did my one and only sub-20 5K (19:55) of the year and hit 176 bpm again in the final desperate push for the line. Running at 83% would mean averaging 146 bpm ... at Abingdon I averaged a metronomic 7:56/m for 22 miles at 136 bpm/77% maxHR... then I slowed a bit as fatigue hit!

     My marathon pace SHOULD be around 7:30/mile ... I'll be interested to see what the sub-LT sessions throw up when I start them next month. I should probably start them at 77% maxHR and only increase this once I am pace-stable over 10 miles.

     

  • Interesting.

    Perhaps it could be to do with other variables such as inefficiencies in your running technique which hinders your potential more and more as the distance increases?

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    I think runnign efficiency is important but not worth 30 s per mile. Fuelling and lack of mileage more likely. Most good marathon runners cover a lot of miles! If I ran the milesage "Joe" managed in the hadd document, I think I'd be a lot better! image

  • Does anyone use beats per mile as a gauge to track improvement?

    I've just been looking into it, using my 2014 marathon as an example:

    At the start of training my average b/mile was around 1350 and by the end (16 weeks later) it had come down to around 1250

    so - 
    Finish time 3.34.40 (214 minutes)

    1250 X 26.2 =35,370
    35,370/214 minutes =153bpm
    153 = 86%MHR (178)

    (153 would include cardiac drift over that distance, so probably set off around 145bpm, 83%MHR)

    Just started marathon training again and right now my average b/mile is back up to around 1350. So if I were to run the marathon next week based on the calculation above I would have to run at 165bmp (92%MHR) to finish in the same time. That aint going to happen is it?

    Clearly I have some improvement during training to make  

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Interesting discussion.



    Iain, you say that due to the hilly terrain which surrounds you, you're unable to get a proper reading of pace. But this is why you should make an effort to do the test periodically on a flat course. The rest of the time it's unimportant to watch the pace, only effort and HR.



    How do you find your beats per mile?



    Dr Dan, how do you calculate race paces based on your subLT pace?



    The (unanswered) question we had before - how to work out a race pace while still in the middle of training? I'd be happy (currently) to race a 5k at 170 (88%) intensity, or maybe a a little faster, but certainly nothing longer! In a month I have a 10k, but I don't know what pace to target...
  • Sol2

    That's exactly what I'm going to do starting tomorrow. Not sure whether to measure by multiples of HR or percentage though (130 140 150, or 75% 80% 85%). Not sure which would be more useful.

    With regards to beats per mile - I log my workouts on Fetch and it works it out for you based this maths: time of run (minutes) divided by average HR, divided by distance.

    So, for example a 4.5 mile run lasting 38 minutes at a average HR of 140 would be:

    38 X 140 =5320

    5320/4.5 =1182 beats per mile

    I should add that Fetch also includes any extra seconds in it's calculation, but I don't know how to do that!

    Obviously, every run's going to have a different number, but, like the Hadd test, it's a marker to track progress identified by an overall decrease in numbers

  • Weekly stats are as follows

    42.17 miles

    8 hours 44 mins

    Average heart rate 145 73%

    Average pace 11:39

    Three club runs pushed this higher than sub 70%.

    How did everyone else do in the frosty 7 days?

  • Nice to see this thread moving again.

    Small world indeed Dr Dan and Shades, strong wind and humid conditions made it Dublin very tough. I passed loads who were flaked out in medical tents along the course on that day.Good pacing finishing strong.

    I'm staying local and doing the MK 20 mile in March and also the Marathon in Mk in May (unfinished business).

     

     

     

  • you may run the same route at the same pace but your heart rate could differ by 5 or 6 pm.

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    I've not had much luck with making any useful sense out of beats per mile.

    Sol ... with the exception of 1 mile and marathon races,  I could easily base my race pace on the McMillan calculator (https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/). It works very well for me from 5K-HM. However, as mentioned above, I can't convert my slower times to hit that predicted marathon pace. However, I think the predicted MP based on the calculator is close to my 80% maxHR pace over a 10 mile subLT session... so it should  be my MP in an ideal world. This time I think I will start my subLT sessions at 77% and only move to 80% once I'm pace-stable at 10 miles (hoping this will be quick because I was stable for 20+ miles at that HR in October and have been training continually since).

     

    49 miles last week ... another 22 on the bike. One aerobic intervals session, 6 x 5 mile run commutes ... and a 13.1 mile hilly LSR.

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Iain, re: the test percentages or fixed HRs, it's really up to you. However, with percentages, you'll probably go till 90% and won't quite get to the 93%. 95% will be extremely difficult to attempt. Either way, just keep each test identical so as to provide meaningful comparisons over time.



    And keep us informed!



    Martin, nice to see you back! Nice running this week. You have invested a lot of time - it'll surely repay you in dividends!



    Here are my weekly stats:



    45 miles

    7hrs 3mins

    HRav 133 (69%)

    Ave pace 9:15/m

    2 rest days (one extra to be fully rested for the test)



    I ran in the snow. I actually added a couple of miles on to that run, as the impact of running in snow is lower!



    Rohit, welcome to the thread! I find that often, too. Or varying paces to the same HR. But that's the benefit of running to HR. It's essentially running to an objective effort level. If your stress levels rise at work or home; are coming down with an illness; not sleeping well, etc, they'll have an effect on the heart rate. And running at the same pace as usual, but with higher HRs, means higher effort and must therefore be avoided.
  • So...after discussion on here with Dr Dan regarding my possibly underestimating my HRMax (because my paces are much slower than they should be for my marathon finishing times), I've adjusted my HRMax from 172 to178 and just done the Hadd test at the track this morning.

    HR average 131 (73.5%) - Pace 11.05 - Beats per mile 1441 

    HR average 140 (78.5%) - Pace  9.33 - Beats per mile 1330

    HR average 151 - (85%) - Pace 8.26 - Beats per mile 1283

    HR average 162 (91%) - Pace 7.29  - Beats per mile 1214

    Not quite bang on with the HR averages but close.

    Now, whilst I might still be gestimating my HRMax still, what I do know for sure is 1. My most recent 10k pace was 7.24 and 2. my last 3 marathon were run at between 8.11 and 8.27.

    On these current figures, it suggests that right now, at the start of marathon training, my marathon pace (151/178) is almost MHR85% and my 10k pace (162/178) is MHR91%

    Do these figures look about right, or does it suggest perhaps I need to guestimate my HRM up a bit more?

    Also, do the 'beats per mile' suggest I'm more efficient the closer to HRM I get?

  • SHADESSHADES ✭✭✭✭

    Iain - well done on the Hadd test.   You also need to record how it felt (legs and breathing) at each of the paces, this will give you an idea of your LT

  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Dr Dan, even though you say that based on the Macmillan calculator you should be able to run a marathon at 80%, based on Hadd you should be starting the marathon at 85% going on up over 90% towards the end. So, probably, if you follow the base phase religiously (you haven't in the past fully, have you?) to the end and then move on to faster training, you might be revising all your times upwards, no?



    Iain, kudos on the test! As Shades said, other than being able to estimate your LT, there isn't much a single test is going to tell you. It's just a way of tracking progress over time. The subLT runs will tell you a lot more about your marathon pace.
  • Sol2

    Yeah I understand. Every run felt painfully slow. Only my 160 felt 'brisk' or 'comfortably hard', and that pace ties in with online calculators and my experience as being around LT

    It still puzzles me thought that based on my previous marathon experience/results and this test, that my MP is probably around MHR86%, yet Dr Dan's is nearer his MHR78% -a much lower % compared to mine, yet he is so much faster at aerobic paces and SubLT.

    I realise there is variation between peeps but this difference feels odd.

  • SHADESSHADES ✭✭✭✭

    Sol2 - I'm not sure there are many (if any) on here that have been able to follow Hadd right through to the ultimate result.   Many of us have done Hadd and shown great improvements and some race PB's but not reached the ultimate aerobic peak that we aim for.

    For me, I like to race, so once I start doing races which is about 8 consecutive months of the year, then I'll maybe pick up a niggle or a cold, training is curtailed and my races are often too close together to do any meaningful training in between.

    Iain - maybe your MHR is even higher than your revised figure?

    I don't think you can easily compare %HR's between two runners even if they run the same race.   One runner may have set off too fast and run the first half too fast, they will then probably show a higher HR for the marathon than the runner that ran a more even pace or started slower, even if they finish at the same time.  And of course it depends how the runner was feeling on the day and how the runner copes with the conditions, heat and humidity affects some more than others.

  • Shades

    I've never seen my pace on my Garmin go above 172/173 on a hard hill session, so I think my MHR being above 178 might be pushing it

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    Iain - my prediction above was 182 bpmimage, so...

    HR average 131 (72%) - Pace 11.05
    HR average 140 (77%) - Pace  9.33
    HR average 151 - (83%) - Pace 8.26
    HR average 162 (89%) - Pace 7.29

    Remember, don't convert these HRs : pace ratios to the pace you'd run over a longer distance ... they are only useful for comparing with another Hadd Test.

    Sol2 wrote (see)
    Dr Dan, even though you say that based on the Macmillan calculator you should be able to run a marathon at 80%, based on Hadd you should be starting the marathon at 85% going on up over 90% towards the end. So, probably, if you follow the base phase religiously (you haven't in the past fully, have you?) to the end and then move on to faster training, you might be revising all your times upwards, no?

    How many people do you know who start a marathon at 85% maxHR? My guess is not many. It's important to remember than "Joe" was a 2:30 marathon runner who put in massive mileage ... clearly VERY aerobically efficient. Hadd rarely ever dealt with slower runners from what I've read on letsrun, so it's not obvious how to use his approach in our world. One thing is for sure, if you want to get Hadd to work you will need to put in the mileage ... look at "Joe's" mileage!! That is where most of us mere mortals fail, rather than on the slow running and sub-LT sessions.

  • Dan - yes  I know, but I don't have the guts to make that assumption!

    Whilst I appreciate my own HR test running up hills etc may not have enabled me to reach HRmax, surely my Garmin recorded Max couldn't have been 10bpm short?

    Having said that, I do like your adjusted stats -they kind of work! Hmmmm

  • Dr.Dan wrote (see)

    Remember, don't convert these HRs : pace ratios to the pace you'd run over a longer distance ... they are only useful for comparing with another Hadd Test.

    Understood. Is that because these don't allow for cardiac drift over a long distance?

  • Dr.DanDr.Dan ✭✭✭

    I know I hit 172 bpm in August 2016 ...
    and in September's Golden Mile (track, 5:56) I did these splits...

    809 m 2:53 average 161/ max 170 bpm
    400 m 1:32 average 171/ max 175 bpm
    400 m 1:31 average 171/ max 176 bpm

    So I know my max is at least 176 bpm. BUT my last two 2016 parkruns at Woodhosue Moor ... 20:20 and 20:25 (so 6:33/m) ... but despite being all-out, these both resulted in a MAX HR on the Garmin of 164 bpm, so a full 12 bpm below "max". What I'm saying is that it is not unusual to be 10 bpm below true max ... it takes a special run to get to max (the perfect storm).

    The 1 mile splits also highlight something else ... note that had I stopped at half way, my pace:HR would have been 161 bpm for sub-6min/mile pace. But in the 2nd half my HR was 171 bpm for a slower pace. This is because it takes a while to build up to the steady-state HR at a particular pace and this is why the Hadd Test can be distracting. Once you get to 10 mile runs, then the build up is less influencial... so the sub-LT (ILTHR) sessions are great for this (still best to discount the first 2-3 miles though as HR tends to be lower at "MP").

     

  • Ah I see. Thanks for the explanation and I am now confident of using your predicted HRMAX for me. My HR to pace and different intensities make sense.



    Thanks Dan
  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    Iain, I don't think 91% should feel 'brisk' or 'comfortably hard.' For most of us mortals, that's a very hard effort. Which is why Dr Dan's assessment that your true HRmax is 182 rings true. Might you have been able to fit in another round at 170? Interesting what would happen there... How fast is your 5k+3? Maybe consider running at this pace for a bit until the HR comes down?



    Shades, you seem to imply two things: that most people don't have the patience to follow the base phase all the way through and that races spell an end to the process. On the first, that may be true. Effective as hadd may be, it is certainly not a quick fix. But patience is rewarded... On the second point, I found a couple of interesting comments by Hadd on LetsRun regarding racing. Read on.



    Dr Dan, you do have a point in that most of us are a whole lot slower than anyone on LetsRun. Are/were they all supermen?! And running 100mpw is just not an option for most. I do recall reading a comment by Hadd (can't find it now to quote) to the effect that if you don't show talent at 40-50mpw, no talent will magically appear at 90mpw. Whatever your genes have given you will be fully realised at high mileage.
  • Sol2Sol2 ✭✭✭
    The promised quote.



    I generally do not recommend racing too much in base phase unless you can accept that you will almost definitely NOT race well. You are staying away from most of the intense training (above 85% HRmax) and yet those intensities are the ones you are going to need when it comes to racing.



    One common comment after racing in Phase I is (at race end) "I could go round again, but not get any faster". This is a sign that base training is doing its job, but that it is NOT preparing you for racing.



    The object of Phase I is simply to get you ready to train more intensely.



    One thing I absolutely would recommend to everyone in Phase I is the following:



    Twice per week, (not on consecutive days, so Tues/Fri works well, or Mon/Thur, etc).

    Warm up easy with 10-15 mins easy running (~15 mins at 70% HRmax), do some stretching then run 10 x 100-100.



    100-100 is how we refer to striding 100m at a pace somewhere between 400-800m PR pace and then (without stopping to walk) going straight into 100m easy in 40-45s.



    That would be 1 x 100-100.



    Without walking at any time, run this 10 times in succession: ie: 10 x 100-100, alternating quick and easy reps of 100m.



    Take 3-4 mins walk-drink break at the end and go into your main session of the day (usually by HR).



    Make sure and include this 2 times per week every week of base training.



    How do you know when Phase I is done?

    When you can run 60 mins straight at 85% HRmax and you do not have to slow to stop your HR rising, or your HR does not rise if you continue at the same pace.



    Yet even when you get to this state you are still not race-ready ... but you are ready to go on to Phase 2a which gets you ready for 3k-HM. Phase 2b is marathon-mode and I generally do not recommend going straight into this from Phase I. Work on maximising your 5-10k times first before going from base to marathon-prep.



    Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3241230#ixzz4W2NhNX4I



    And another quote from the same thread:



    Nobody can tell you how much mileage to run. It all comes down to lifestyle, committment, desire, motivation... If you want to run a decent marathon you should expect to run 70-90mpw for a long build up to give it a decent crack. If you don't want to go by miles/km, convert it to hours and go by time.



    Doubles rather than singles I had gone into elsewhere. ST's tend to benefit from lots of mileage. FT's (IMO) might find it easier to break the daily mileage into doubles to give them refuelling time (they are not so fat-burning efficient so will burn a higher ratio of carbs to fats on any distance run)



    No need for overlong singles either: Can be:

    Mon: 60 mins

    Tue: 75 mins to include higher HR work

    Wed: 45 mins

    Thurs (AM): 90 mins

    Fri: 75 mins to include higher HR work

    Sat: 45 mins

    Sun: alternate 2hrs at easy HR one week with 90 mins including 60 mins at higher HR work the next



    The no-racing thing is not purely psychological, but dont discount the importance of that either. No-one likes to get their ass handed to them.



    A common comment if you race in Phase I is I could go round again, but not get faster! This can be frustrating. Yet it just shows that Phase I is doing its job, but that job is NOT to prepare you to race. The temptation will be to get to quicker sexy training sooner than recommended just so as you can post some decent race times. Dont shorten Phase I (Pete will agree with me here), or do a half-assed job. Do it right and you may never have to come back to it again, just keep topping it up within the other Phases.



    100-100 can be 400-800m pace for STs, but more like 800-1500m pace for FTs. Watch the temptation to lengthen the jog rec to push the fast bits hard
  • Sol2 - Yes, agree with Dan's assessment now. That particular HR (whatever the percentage) felt like my tempo runs, slightly slower than 10K race pace. Definatelt not 'excruciating' as you described one of your miles.

    I chickened out of doing another 4 laps at 170 image I'm sure that WOULD have been  'excruciating' !

    I haven't done a 5K for a very long time but would imagine it would be around 6.50 -7.00m/m. My long runs (and 80% of my weekly miles) are run at around 9.30m/m, so I'm pretty much on track.

Sign In or Register to comment.