andy the deestrider. wrote (see)
So basically then if your max HR is higher than Joe's then you automatically use 193 and therefore use all the same numbers as Joe does in the document. Could someone confirm I have this right or not please?
Yes, I believe that is what Hadd says. Although I don't understand why Hadd had the 193 bpm cut-off, it is probably sensible to start with that as your max and so stick to "Joe's" training heart rates. The important thing in the ILTHR sessions is that you minimize drift ... so if you start off going at too low a heart rate, you'll be able to complete the 10 mile session without drift and then bump up the threshold for the next run. I think you'll soon find the correct sub-LT heart rate.
And I wouldn't worry about running more that 50 mpw ... that can only help. The difficult part for most people who start this is coping with the slow pace at 70% maxHR ... have you tried running at 135 bpm yet? If it turns out to be very slow, then 100 mpw might take a long time on your feet.
Dr Dan, you say about how your max hr is 178 so does that mean you do everything 15bpm lower than Joe does? So where joe does a 2400m test with 140, 150, 160, 170 & 180bpm would you personally use 125, 135, 145, 155, 165bpm?
I've never done the Hadd test ... but, yes, if I did it would be at 130, 140, 145, 155 and 165, based on equivalent %maxHRs (but rounded off).
Dr Dan. Cheers for that answer by the way, Very helpfull.
i think i get it now *he says*.
Joe numbers are:
Maximum heart rate 193
marathon heart rate 175
easy daily running 145
Initial LTHR 155-160 (working up to 175)
Once i get my my marathon out the way and have recovered i plan on going onto this method of training so look forward to starting with a 2400m test. so i have something to compare as i hopefully improve. i`ll be following this thread for time being though. Thanks.
See you on Sunday then!
AtD (and DrDan) - The very best of luck on Sunday.
AtD, Because of the nature of most of my runs (I run thru town to get on the canal), I display current lap (time), lap pace, lap HR and HR (current). I don't look at the readings whilst warming up thru town, dodging pedestrians and stopping at lights. I lap the garmin when I get to the canal (or some clear running). This is about a mile into the run, so I am (almost) warmed up, and the stats are now appropriate.
I've seldom used "time" although others on here will advocate it, such as Brian and of course HADD himself said to use time on feet. Of course i'm not saying i disagree with that, but i always know how far i'm going to run and how long roughly it will take me beforehand so although i indirectly go by time, i don't have it on my garmin screen. And i don't show distance because, as i say, i've already pre-planned how far i'm going to run.
So for me i only really fuss about HR but i like to know pace as well ... distance and time(ish) are decided before i head off.
I had a really weird run yesterday. Went out for a 5M recovery, stock run on the canal. I had hit a gym session pretty hard on Wed morning, so I was sore in the glutes, thighs, hips and groin. I ran and it felt ok once i had got the first couple of miles done. After the run, looked at the stats and the HR was incredibly low for the pace (7:57 / 115). HR of 115 is 61.8%. As I was running I felt that everything was great, the form felt just right even though there was some discomfort from the gym DOMS. The HR/Pace ratio is just about the best I have ever seen for that distance/terrain run, and I just couldn't fathom it.
When I spoke to a colleague later who is also a runner, she said that it would be because I was engaging muscles that I wouldn't normally. Thinking about it she was probably right as I was aware of the abs and lower abs because of the soreness. She says that her physio is always telling her that to run with good form and efficiently, we should engage the abs, glutes etc.
Mace & Brian wow i now realise how fortunate i am that i can go from my front gate rather than basically discount the first mile or thereabouts anyway.
i can see why you both have your watches set to show 4 different figures on 1 single screen. though that was a concern of mine when i was choosing wether or not to follow this Hadd malarkey because i wanted to keep things fairly simple so whereas before i would have Time, distance and average pace, today i had time, current HR and ave HR but i`m thinking of getting rid of the Time so i just have 2 numbers (current HR + Ave HR) i found today that it was quite hard keeping the HR at 135BPM, so while i learn the "feel" of this effort i may need to keep checking the watch.
Did others struggle to guage there effort when they first started?
Brian well done on sub 8 min miling at 61.8% of your max.
today on my 6 miler i only managed 8:50's at 62.9% (134BPM) is only my second ever HR run though. do you think i will be able to get sub 8 min miling for my same effort eventually?
You are well trained obviously. Marathon tuned, with 100mpw's behind you. But I daresay once you have recovered from the marathon (1 month from now), and you adopt the recipe of easy 70min runs, sub-lt 90min runs and 2hr long runs, your lactate threshold will increase and therefore you will run faster at all sub-lt levels. In other words all run/race distances 10miles and longer.
This type of training does not lend itself to shorter distance stuff. But it would be a great base to then build in VO2 and tempo work.
went out for a 30 min run and REALLY STRUGGLED to keep my HR under 150bpm.
Average HR was 148 over the 30 mins. Rose fairly quickly to high 140's, then I had to try going verrrrrrrrry slow to keep it under 150.
I don't know my exact MHR, but given i'm 34 I guess the 220-age would have it as 186, so that means I was averaging 79% of my maxHR, and my pace was 11:15 min miles, so I could barely go any slower. It was actually really hard keeping it above a walk. When I did stop to walk for 15 seconds (stuck behind a group of people) I was pretty much going the same speed (just with less vertical travel) but my HR dropped.
The effort level felt very low, and as I said, I'm not sure I could have run any slower, so how can I possibly train around 70% of maxHR (as I understand is the suggestion) to increase aerobic fitness. This would be ~130bpm, which I'd surpassed within about 3-4 mins of plodding.
if i continue to go out plodding at the same effort level/pace will this actually do me any good? I'm a bit confused about how I can benefit from this type of training if my HR won't stay low enough as such a snails pace?
... stage 1 is knowing your real maxHR. 220-age doesn't work. Time to the max HR test !!
ok, so the suggestion being that my actual maxHR is possibly higher than 186, meaning that my 148avg would be a lower %age of the max. That would certainly make sense if the effort level is anything to go by.
AgentGinger, Give us some background information please.
Sorry, yes, some bio: I'm 34year old, male, 5'10'', 71kg. Only started running when i was 30, ran a few 10ks and a couple of HMs and a Marathon (brighton 2010). None of my times were particularly impressive and my "training" was very haphazard (basically running 5k about 3 times per week as fast as possible, and not really finding that I was getting any faster. PB 24:05).
For what it's worth PB for 10k = 0:55:00, HM = 2:00 and Marathon = 5:08
started running again in August with the intention of doing it "properly" this time, which means with consistency, and I think what needs most immediate attention is my aerobic fitness.
I like the idea of running around 70 - 75% MHR (which is what the HADD article seemed to suggest), and so at a comfortable pace below lactate threshold to ensure all the effort is aerobic and not anaerobic, which I guess is what most of my previous running has been, and why i'm still aerobically unfit.
However, assuming my MaxHR is "somewhere" in the region of 185-190 that would put a 70-70% run at 133-142 bpm, which I've recently demonstrated is almost impossible as my slowest possible jog still has my HR around 150. So I guess I'm asking whether continuing to run at this effort level, even given the higher than optimum HR, is going to encourage the same adaptations mentioned in the Hadd article? Will I develop aerobically from this incredibly slow jog that could still effectively be anaerobic? (having had no clinical LT test I can't say definitively what my LT is).
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |