HADD training plan

1,741 to 1,760 of 3,777 messages
22/11/2012 at 14:44

Brian - yes, 2 mths ago i was averaging 35-40 a week, now up to 50. And my HR bands have moved up 5 beats. Also, comparing the run up to both runs i get :

Sept = 6 - 16 - rest - rest - 7 - subLT

Nov = rest - 17 - 5 - 10 - 7 - subLT

So next week i think i'll take a rest day before going again.

Looking over the numbers again i have to say i'm happy with the HR which is solid for consistent pace. Better than it was in September.

22/11/2012 at 15:08

Well did 6 miles in the wind and rain.   Was a struggle at the slow pace.   Still some pain in my calf.   Hopefully just some stiffness or is back to resting

22/11/2012 at 16:13

I feel quite lazy when i see the sort of weekly mileage that some of you guys and gals are popping out. How much time are you spending on your feet over the week. I assume it's only possible to be doing 50+ miles per week if you're quite a bit faster than my 10min/miles, otherwise that'd take me over 8 hours.

This week for example, I'll have run for about 50 mins on mon, tue and thurs, 90mins on weds and about 2 hours on saturday, (resting on thurs and swimming on sunday) and still covering just 35 miles (give or take). Are you high-milers on your feet for the same amount of time, just running faster, or are you also out on the road more often and for longer?

22/11/2012 at 16:25

AG - most of mine is around 9 min per mile so about 7.5 hrs a week.

That includes 2 @ 90mins and 1 @ 150mins and then 3 runs of about 45-60mins.

I'm lucky in that i live a 10 min cycle ride to work so during the week instead of laying in i get up about 90mins earlier than i used to. I'd imagine it's a real job to grind out the miles if you have a decent commute to do.

Edited: 22/11/2012 at 16:26
22/11/2012 at 16:33

AG - my weekly mileage is 30 at present. Longer training time just isn't possible for me with work, dog walking, living, etc,etc. My aim is to complete HM's only for the time being. I recognise everything will take longer at this mileage but that's it.

I reckon 30 miles a week for me for HM's is just about OK (unless anyone thinks differently). I would say for full marathon it has to be 40+

22/11/2012 at 16:39
mace wrote (see)

Good grief, things are moving quick in here !!

Dr Dan - top running @ Abbey Dash. Sub-40 looks to be in trouble

Yep, I can't keep up with the thread anymore... inspiration stuff though!!

I have been sub-40 before mace ... and will again. However, if that's going to happen, I'd better start training!!!!!! Recovery over .... time to get back to work!





22/11/2012 at 16:39

Oh, I'm also originally from Chester ... but now in Leeds.

22/11/2012 at 16:42


what I am running at present but will increase milage after xmas/ new year, and add one 85% run.

Monday 5m @ 70%

Tuesday 7m @ 70%

Wednesday 10m @ 80% with 1mw/p and 1mw/d total 12m

Thursday 11m @ 70%

Friday rest

Sat parkrun on feel only no HRM used

Sunday 16m @ 70%

70% runs are between 9.30 to 10,00 mins a mile

80% runs are between 8.0 to 8.10 mins a mile

parkruns average 7 mins a mile

The park runs will be ran at 70% or not run at all early next year. Milage just over 50, with if I wish 2 days rest. As you can see lots of slow miles.



22/11/2012 at 17:25
AG- at the moment now I'm fully recovered from chester marathon (disaster- ill with tonsillitis) training is back up to full mileage.
Mostly training is between 7:30 and 8min mile pace apart from 2interval sessions a week, 1 parkrun and now an 80%run each week. So last week for example was 12hrs 47mins in total ave 7:35pace overall.
22/11/2012 at 17:25

BD2000 - sorry i missed your post earlier.

I'd suggest going to 80% - i stand to be corrected but i believe the theory is that 75-80% is a 'nothing' zone ie. it's not low enough to develop mitochondria to improve aerobically and not high enough to stimulate/increase lactate threshold. Then once you can nail pace/HR @ 80%, you nudge HR up by up to 5 beats. Once you 'master' that next level you nudge HR up a bit more so you are gradually easing the threshold up.

22/11/2012 at 19:32

Thats the theory Mac but its never rung true to me (not that I have any firm evidence to the contrary, just a gut feeling). I accept its too low for lactate runs but not so sure about the aerobic side of things. The Hadd document has "Joe" running in this range when he's relatively new to the schedule.

I think its more likely,  rather than it being some sort of "dead zone" where its not helping anthing inprove, the disadvatage of 75-80 running lies in that you can get similar results aerobically running at 70-75% while also managing more miles, more time on feet and with less chance of injury. 


Like I say, just a gut feeling though.

Edited: 22/11/2012 at 19:33
22/11/2012 at 20:37

AG - I thought that about mileage and time a while ago as well. I also remembered after I had been running consistently for a few months that there was no way I could manage to squeeze in more than 30mpw into my busy life. Since that time I have increased my responsibilities at work, started an MA and gained another child. Yet this week I am probably going to exceed 60miles. It is all about creative time management (and very early mornings 

Here is my last week (60miles, 7hr 15min) to give you an idea:

Mon 5m 45min easy Tue 11m 90min @141 Wed 5m 45min easy Thu 14m 2hr @ 14m Fri 5m 45min easy Sat 10m @143 90min Sun No running as race Marshall
22/11/2012 at 20:40

Mace / Gaz - So 70 - 75% is good and 80% is good but 76, 77, 78, 79% is bad?  It seems a very exact science, this Hadding.

22/11/2012 at 20:56

Thats how I understand it and make a point of slowing if the HR goes over by even just 1% for a few meters. Not introduced any 80% runs yet I am enjoying the slower runs and getting the miles in between night shifts. Should be 50 again this week if I dont drown first !!

Last week was 50 miles,  7.5 hours in total.

Edited: 22/11/2012 at 21:12
22/11/2012 at 22:20

The benefit of 77% runs is that you are getting used to running quicker before up to 80%

22/11/2012 at 22:52

andy the deestrider. That works out at approx. 100 miles for the week - what sort of schedule are you on!!!???

22/11/2012 at 22:53
Keir wrote (see)

Mace / Gaz - So 70 - 75% is good and 80% is good but 76, 77, 78, 79% is bad?  It seems a very exact science, this Hadding.

Not for me Kier, as I've said that doesn't "feel" right to me.

I think theres every chance that 70-75% is more effective aerobically than 75-80  from a milage/ effort/ injury point of view but I find it hard to see that theres this "dead zone" where you are not getting aerobic benefit from your runs because of a view % here or there.

Edited: 22/11/2012 at 22:54
22/11/2012 at 23:03

mmmm...to cut the Gordian knot, I think, to borrow from the techie Triathletes, "dead zone" is anywhere between "not aerobic" to "not above LT"...so anything more than 8x% but less than 9x%.

So, run your aerobic runs slow, your speed/tempo (not Hadd, I admit) above 90%....Hadd's point is that most club runners do loads of miles somewhere between 80% and 90%, and it's all a waste of time. ..as I've found out over the last 3 years of training...

22/11/2012 at 23:13

How many miles a week were you managing at that level Tek?

22/11/2012 at 23:16
Good point, Gaz. 40? Then a week off through injury...
1,741 to 1,760 of 3,777 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums