Thats my point Tek. I'm not sure its the heart rate thats the blame, its just that us mere mortals can't put in 60-70 miles weeks consistently at that speed without getting injured.
Theres every chance the improvement you've seen is "just" due from being able to train at 60/ 70 miles a week and injury free rather than at 40 miles a week? If you could do 70 miles a week at 75-80% then I'd guess you'd see improvement.
I think the cause and effect of Hadd is being able to do the extra miles every week when you run slower rather than the faster running being worthless in itself.
Again though, just a gut feeling.
andy - awesome mileage
Gaz - I thought about this last night, and the debate begs another question: why not train at say 65%? Even less injuries, but I guess even more hours to reach the same physiological benefits re aerobic capacity?
If you look at the example schedules Hadd gives after Joe has reached 50m pw, the runs are at various HRs from 73% to 83%...the lower ones to ensure they are deeply aerobic, the higher ones to nudge up the LT, all the time recognising that no-one really knows "where" LT is.
This is my second stab at Hadd and I now think over time you can nudge all the HR zones up - but 70 or 75 plus a dash of 80-83 is easy to remember and keeps you focussed on managing drift.
I dream of the day I might handle the fast Hadd stuff he goes on about on the Letsrun thread...e.g 3 x 3k at 95-96% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery...I'd need to be AtD for that in a 100 mile week
...now off to repair my awful stats at 70% which are sh*t again...
mace - going back a couple of pages- isn't that a HUGE improvement in your subLT pace? Could you map out how that's gone over the last few months (need something to look forward to...)?
Teknik - As mentioned a few pages back (identified from the Fetch thread), I don't think HADD tells Joe to run at 70% at all. 75% is the slowest. I have gone through the HADD thread as well and although he focuses on pace rather than HR, again, nothing indicates below 75%. So I would wonder how anyone could interpret HADD as recommending 65%. HADD seems to be saying slower is better, but surely there s a point where slower is actually worse, or else we would be better off running 20m/m as per the 1880s pedestrians.
I understand that 80 - 90% is an inbetween zone. I am sure we are getting fit running in this zone, but not optimising our training and increasing injury risk. As others have said, this seems to be the main point of HADD.
Very impressive mieage AtL
Keir wrote (see)
Teknik - As mentioned a few pages back (identified from the Fetch thread), I don't think HADD tells Joe to run at 70% at all. 75% is the slowest. I have gone through the HADD thread as well and although he focuses on pace rather than HR, again, nothing indicates below 75%.
I think that the lower HRs are sometimes quoted as being "Hadd" due to confusing % maxHR and % wHR ... 75% maxHR is often around 65% wHR for most people. However, Hadd's does say that "Easy everyday running" should be 75% maxHR or lower, so I wouldn't worry about going down to below 70% (especially on LSRs where you're also trying to improve fat usage).
Interesting debate going on.
Has anybody got the original Hadd document?
I have tried to find it on the net without success. The analysis on Letsrun doesn't seem to be the same as the original to my memory. I remember Joe doing lots of work at 130/135 HRs and in the zone 130-140. These are 67%/70% and zone 67%-73%.
Very intersting reading, 72.5% it is then?
Im depressed,. After my easy 6 miles yesterday my calf is playing up again. Not sure if I just need to take a month off running and start again in new year!
spen, I'll let you into a little secret. Physios are generally not worth their salt. Go get a good sports massage, and book in regularly. Then get on the foam roller as many time as you can.
I re-read some of the original HADD document (which is good to do now and then as it brings us back to what we are trying to achieve) and lots of the questions I have been asking are answered in the document. I use it as a 'guide' and it does me good to go back to it now and then, re-inforcing what I am aiming for. This section covers at least the basic concept for those (like me) who like the stats (remember to adjust for own maxHR) - I highlighted in bold the %of MaxHR which I added into the document;
As a general rule, the best possible HR/pace/effort you can maintain for a full marathon (without crashing, hitting the wall, etc) will not be closer to HRmax than 15-20bpm. Getting within 20bpm of HRmax might be hard enough at first, but with proper training it is possible to get even within 15-20bpm of HRmax. Closer than this (as an average over the whole race) I would not expect you to be capable of.So, HRmarathon is ~20bpm below HRmax, and easy running HR is another 30bpm (or more) below HRmarathon (therefore 50bpm or more below HRmax). Like this:
If your HRmax is 193 OR HIGHER, then the following applies:HRmax: 193+ (even if over 200)Best possible HRmarathon: 175-177 (90%-92%) HRav (note, this is the average taken from mile 5 to mile 25, not the peak. Your HR might peak to 181 (93%) in the final miles as you throw everything onto the fire).Suggested training HR's: Easy every day running: 145 HR (75%) or lower (If you begin really unused to this form of training, initially you might start at 150 (77%), but as soon as the pace at this HR improves, it is recommended that you reduce your easy running HR to 145 (75%) or lower). This can often feel very slow to begin with, but should improve within 3-6 weeks and continue to improve for months. You may do as much running as you wish at this HR/intensity (always being careful to avoid overuse injury).Initial LTHR (initial lactate threshold heart rate): As with Joe in the example, begin at 155-160 (80%-83%) and do not let the HR rise on the run. Build up the distance you can run for, over time, to 10 miles. At first, you may have to slow down within the run to maintain HR, but over the weeks and months, you should note that the running speed begins to remain more stable and you do not have to slow down (so much) to stop your HR rising. In time, the running pace at this HR (and all other HR’s above it) will also improve. Only move this HR up when your running pace vs HR is rock steady and you (easily) are able to run 10 miles at this HR without loss of pace or rise in HR. At that point, only move the HR up by 5bpm and begin again. The slower you build up the first time, the better your pace at HRmarathon will be. Remain at each HR as long as you are seeing improvement on the 2400m test and definitely until your pace vs HR is stable. You are trying to reach a state where your predicted/expected marathon pace and your 170 HR (88%) pretty much coincide in the 2400m test. And that this pace per mile can be maintained in training for 10-15 miles at 170-175 HR (88%-90%) without rising effort or rising HR.
Brian. ORIGINAL HADD DOCUMENT HERE
ORIGINAL LETS RUN HADD THREAD HERE
Reading that lot will be your morning gone!
BD2000. Thanks for the reminder. I have just realised why I thought Joes HRs were 10 beats lower than they actually were. I had saved part of the document with some typical weeks in, and I had doctored the HRs for my use. ie. because I thought that my HRmax at the time was 186, I had deducted 10 from all the HRs.
I know Brain. I have one problem, I get physio for free and cannot afford a sports massage! Dont know what to do now!!!!
Reading that again, all easy running is done below 75% and initial Sub LT running should be done in the range 80-83%.
70% running is nice though if you are able to run at this speed.
I was out of VLM due to an injury 6 weeks prior Spen. Lots of physio helped but didn't really get to the cause. Addmittedly it was getting better, but after a sports massage I was cured!
BD2 - My 5k HR is 17bpm lower than my max. My Marathon HR is another 12bpm below that. No way I could marathon at MaxHR - 20bpm.
Going back to the question about time on feet per week:
I am averaging 49miles per week this year, pace 7:57 m/m. That amouts to 6.5 hours per week. In marathon training I peaked at 75miles per week, pace 7:45. This amounts to 9 hours per week.
A busy friday morning. Lots of X-posts going on. Brian, I am curious of what you will make of re-reading the original HADD document above. I am really wondering if we are all running a bit too slowly here!
Talking of which - The alarm went off at 5.30am, but I instantly felt a sore throat so decided to listen to my body (for a change) and rolled over for an extra hours kip.
Keir, Never say no way.
spen, similar situation to me, I get half my fizz costs back (hospital fund), but at the end of the day if it works..... my case is helped by the fact that I get massages from a mate, and he gives me discounted rates.
I think the bottom line is enjoyment. And if we're injured we're certainly not enjoying it.
Mmmm part of my last post was lost there!!!!!
I went on to say that running at 75% or lower, and S&C work is the way forward.
(Beware of using the less than symbol, it has strange qualities!!!!!)
My take on this is. Run all miles at 70% to you get upto your target mileage so reducing the chance of injury. Then move it over to 75% and then finally add the sub LT.
Think this is the relevant part:
The low aerobic pace had to be ~50 bpm lower than his HRmax (70-75% of HRmax). Since Joe'sHRmax was 193, this put his easy mileage at 145 HR (or lower). The second HR was to be a bit higher, but still under LT. This one was set at 155-160. (Note here: the LT at this point was still low, and occurring at a low HR. In time, Joe would be able to run at marathon HR 175 very very comfortably, because the lactate at that effort/HR would be low by race time. Until then, he had to work BELOW this effort and ease the comfort zone up until it reached 175+). This second intensity was set at Marathon HR minus 15-20 bpm (for now, it would be allowed to rise as Joe's fitness improved... as will be explained in the example). As a general guide, and in my experience, this is what I have found works best. Marathon HR will be approx 15-20 beats lower than HRmax (no better). And aerobic conditioning HR needs to be another 30 bpm below THAT (and hence ~50bpm below HRmax) I will qualify this in a more general statement at the end.
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 |