I always find maxHR tests much easier when a bit unfit ... the fitter you get, the harder you have to work to get the HR up, espcecially if you've been in base training. The art of the maxHR test is to build up the work rate at the correct rate ... too much too soon leads to lactate build up and fatigue.
chickadeee wrote (see)
What I would like to understand better is how to structure the training weeks. There isn't a proper schedule anywhere, is there? So you basically do a bunch of easy runs (135 bpm for me) plus 2 faster ones (145-150), right? How long should those faster ones be at the beginning? OK, at some point you are supposed to be able to do this for 10 miles with no drop in pace and no increase in HR but what sort of distance makes sense for the first weeks?
I was doing 6 days a week ... Sun long, Tues & Fri ILTHR (12M with 10.5 at target HR) and Sat off. Mon, Wed and Thurs were "filler" days (1 hour/7 miles).
Chick, for your maxHR, you should try doing your LSR at 127/128 and try to run your fillers at a similar HR if you can (but see my post above if the pace is just too slow to be classed as "running"). I found the two ILTHR sessions per week pretty tough - start these once you're comfortable with 50M per week ... it's vital that the fillers and LSR are kept as easy as possible so that these ILTHR sessions can be executed correctly. If you have a 1M circuit you can run, I'd recommend that for your ILTHR sessions. That way you can monitor your 1M time on each circuit and see whether your pace is dropping at the target sub-LT HR (148 bpm for you). After a warm up, do the first 1M at 138-140 ... second at 140-145 ... and then the 3rd at 148. Note the time for mile 3. Now keep at 148 bpm and ideally complete another 7M ... but if your 1M laps start slowing significantly at 148 bpm and its becoming very tough, it may be a sign to call it a day.
With two of these per week, I found that I quite quickly improved my ability to maintain a constant pace over the 10M ... I felt very fit! I did 8 sessions over a 1 month period and saw my average pace over the 10.5M go from 7:39/m to 7:13/m. My issue was that it was tough and, as I started to cycle and swim for a tri, it become too much to keep going. I only did 5 sessions over the next two months ... and then I was into more mara-specifi training. So, I'm keen to have another go over a longer period.
Just need to get running again first!
Johnny/Dr Dan cheers for great info/advice... Johnny as explained in earlier thread, cocked up on set up of garmin, as all data is useful here are the results, I did realise something was wrong during second effort, but thought sod it....
Aim 130HR - Start off HR 121 - 8.33mp - AHR 135 - HHR 149
Aim 140HR - Start off HR 94 - 7.15mp - AHR 147 - HHR 153
Aim 150HR - Start off HR 109 - 7.15mp - AHR 149 - HHR 154
Aim 160HR - Start off HR 105 - 7.23mp - AHR 149 - HHR 154
Aim 170HR - Start off HR 107 - 7.13mp - AHR 151 - HHR 157
I've included my start off/resting HR, as I've always believed the speed of recovery is a vital part of running... I also agree with a comment you made Johnny.... Its very differcult to get above the high 150's ... So today I set my garmin up properly and attempted test again.... I knew I would struggle to complete it, but needed to gather some info for route planning, plus only plan to be operating in the 130 - 140HR range over the next few weeks.... Results are...
Aim 130HR - Start off HR 102 - 8.19mp - AHR 130 - HHR 135
Aim 140HR - Start off HR 92 - 7.41mp - AHR 140 - HHR 146
Aim 150HR - Start off HR 99 - 7.15mp - AHR 146 - HHR 151
Dead..... So the trainning begins... Next test christmas....
Interesting test BN74. In the first test if there was no difference between pace at 140 and 150 that certainly suggests something was wrong.
What is your MHR? 220-51=169. I know that formula is poo-poohed as not being appropriate for everyone but it has always been very close for me from age 30 to age 50+
It does seem to me that unless you are supremely fit then the lowest band is too high. It is less than 2 min/mile off 5K PB pace and that is supposed to be very easy running. My lowest band is 5K pace plus 3:15 which is quite a big difference.
Can understand what your saying...... Before I got injuried in 97, I had been running most of my life, athletic's mainly, and had a bit of a natural ability.....
Since returning, my initial pace is fairly quick and comfortable (my 5k pb, I ran the first half in 9.30 and second half in 10.29, and all my races have all the same breakdown - hence Hadd training for stamia)... Slowing the first half doesn't make any difference...
So, the first 2.4k effort is well in my comfort zone... the remainder is a struggle.... Am using 180 as my HR, as I achieved that over the last 300mtrs of a 5k when I realised I had a chance of breaking 20mins... Most of my races I go above 170......
I have been waiting 6 weeks for my next test hoping everything would be great and the difference would be really noticeable. How disappointed I am
28/9/11 Total 62:12
110 15:31 10:21
120 13:19 08:53
130 12:14 08:09
140 11:04 07:23
150 10:04 06:48
08/11/11 Total 62:57
110 15:42 10:28
120 13:42 09:08
130 12:19 08:13
140 11:12 07:28
150 10:02 06:41
So I was slower at every band bar the last one. That is not good. However in my defence I have increased my mileage and I was quite tired coming into today with a 13.5 on Sunday and an 8 miler last night. The other major difference is that I was rather lax on the first test and gave myself between 2 and 2:30 minutes (not intentionally) but I was a lot tighter today.therefore to get the same results definitely less rest is a definite bonus.
Overall I am quite pleased with my progress and I might do another test next week when I am a little bit more rested.
JB - I've not done this actual test (yet) but from my experience of interval training in general, the difference an extra minute's rest can make is highly significant. So I definitely think you can put a positive spin on your session.
I've added a few more touches to my faux-HADD comeback plan. If I can start building up again unhindered from December I'm planning on doing the 2,400m test monthly over Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr. Hopefully this will tell me what sort of shape I'm in for returning to racing about that time. Thursday evening should work - track open, hardly anyone there.
It is interesting that the 4th band is about 7:25 pace and that is whereabouts I think I should be although I have no basis for that belief. My first HM in 23 years in January should get me into the 7:30-7:40 ball park area so I will have to see how training goes.
The 2400M test is quite a hard one and takes a long time. I wish I had gone for a 2K test now. I think that would have been as reliable as the 2.4Km was based on Joe being a much faster runner and therefore not taking as long as us mortals. Doing one monthly will give you a good indication of how things are going
Great news, another Hadd thread. I think this is the best training method of all, last year I knocked 13 mins off my marathon time and the year before 13 minutes.
Just starting again now that my 2011 races are all done with. Goal race is a 100k next year.
Off to read full thread now
JohnnyBike wrote (see)
I have been waiting 6 weeks for my next test hoping everything would be great and the difference would be really noticeable. How disappointed I am...
Johnny - I can't remember, but have you started the ILTHR sessions yet or are you still at the building slow mileage stage?
DD, Phase 1 finished last week. That was all at 75% HR (125) although my longer runs did take me over 130 on some occasions. Overall 95%+ of all runs were at 125 or less in the last 6 weeks.
My ILTHR training starts this week with a plan to do 2 longer runs at 135 AHR and the rest of my running at 125 or less.
I am keeping a blog on this *(and otherrunning related themes)
DD, Phase 1 finished last week. That was all at 75% HR (125) although my longer runs did take me over 130 on some occasions. Overall 95%+ of all runs were at 125 or less in the last 6 weeks. My ILTHR training starts this week with a plan to do 2 longer runs at 135 AHR and the rest of my running at 125 or less. I am keeping a blog on this *(and otherrunning related themes)
Nice thought BN, however the indoor treadmill at the gym somewhat reduces the strength of that argument.
Right finally managed to read the whole thread and pleased to see runners embarking on Hadd training for the first time.
I've been doing Hadd on and off for a few years but some years have been spoiled by my racing addiction and injury. But when I've managed to get a decent spell of Hadd training I have always been rewarded by a PB or two.
I am a much slower runner than most of you on this thread but I still think I have a PB or two left in me and I love Hadd training.
So I will train at 70% MHR until I can run 8 to 10 miles with no cardiac drift then will start on ILTHR sessions.
I will also do a Hadd test this weekend but will only do the first 3 HR's as I have a niggle that is healing nicely and don't want to aggravate it by any faster running. In the early stages of Hadd it's improvements in the lower HR's (the bottom of the toothpaste tube) that I'm looking for.
Good luck with the Hadd testing Shades.
I tried a test run yesterday after a week off running ... but I am definitely injured. Bike and Pool for me for the foreseeable.
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 |