Low HR Training

12

Hadd experiences? (Read 926 times)

    I read the Hadd advice and some of it sounded plausible. The problem he describes... marathon pace isn't as it should be from  5k pace is my problem and I was thinking about trying out following this approach to training. 

     

    I ran a marathon in October in 3:21, following a plan from "Advanced Marathoning" by Pfitzinger and Douglas. I'd like to get down to 3:15 when I do my next marathon which will be in April.

     

    I wondered wether anyone had tried Hadd style training and how it actually worked out in practice?

      Out of interest I did the test today (2.4km at different heart rates). Raw data here. Summary of pace for each HR:

       

      HR min/km min/mile
      140 5:40 9:08
      150 5:05 8:11
      160 4:34 7:21
      170 4:17 6:53
      180 4:02 6:29

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      I did yo-yo around the target heart rates a little bit, but overall I was pretty close most of the time.

      C-R


        Nice times pr. I think others here have Hadd experience. Most of the focus is on Low HR training. But I bet if you make/create your log so we can see what you are doing, I bet you'll get some solid targeted comments.

         

        BTW - I went from a 3:48 to 3:10 in a couple of years via MAF and Lydiard periodization. Still haven't hit my full potential but one thing I've learned is you need volume. Lots and lots of volume built over extended time (years) regardless of the plan to start getting near 3 (unless of course you're just gifted). Pound out the miles in a way that keeps you off injured reserve - the times will come.

         

        Good luck.


        "He conquers who endures" - Persius
        "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

          Nice times pr. I think others here have Hadd experience. Most of the focus is on Low HR training. But I bet if you make/create your log so we can see what you are doing, I bet you'll get some solid targeted comments.

           

           

          At the moment I'm not doing an awful lot... just doing some easy running as and when I feel like it (although I will race a HM this weekend). 

           

          What I'm trying to do is plan how to train for my next marathon which will be in mid-April. That's about 19 weeks away now... and I did have it in my mind that I might repeat the 70-85 mpw, 18 week program from "Advanced marathoning", but I'm wondering whether a different kind of training regime might be better for me.

          jimmyb


          port-a-bella-potty

            Hey Pr100,

             

            Are you related to Pr99? CLose friend of mine. Cool

            Welcome.

             

            I did Hadd Training back in 2004 for my first marathon, and I've also used a plan out of Advanced Marathoning.

             

            I progressed during Hadd training, but I didn't have a great marathon, hitting the wall pretty badly. But that could be blamed on a few other mistakes I made (like the pancakes an hour before the race), or just that it was my first marathon. It was fun to do. The whole idea being that you are trying to move your Lactate Threshold higher. Since then, I've come to believe you can do the same thing with a pure aerobic base period with no speedwork, followed by a period where you add  brief LT runs at LT HR and marathon HR runs. All those tiers that HADD has aren't really necessary. Fun to do, but not necessary. Periodization as Norm said in the previous post. The aerobic base builds your aerobic system, which is the key in racing, and then the speed period sharpens your anaerobic system, and then you get to racing. Or just skip the speedwork and get racing, letting that be your speedwork. A cut in training volume is advised when you start racing.

             

            I found that the Advanced Marathoning worked until it started to break me down. Too much. He adds the speedwork in with no cut in volume, with no base period. Recovery runs are at a pretty high HR, and the general aerobic medium and long runs get very close to LT, if not exceed it for some people (at the end of the runs). If you are just going by pace, without a HRM, his 20% off of what your goal marathon pace might be for long runs might be way too stressful for some people. You can make any number your goal pace, and if it is way faster than you can really do, then your long runs might be run at what your marathon race pace actually is, or pretty close to it. His HR's for the medium and long runs are only something I would consider for post-aerobic base phase---these days.

             

            The key during aerobic base is to build aerobic speed. You want to get faster at the aerobic HR you are using. Using an MAF test during all phases, even if you aren't using your MAF during training is a very handy tool that will let you know if your system is developing or regressing.

            If you want to get down to 3:15, then you want to get your MAF tests or aerobic speed down near Norm's (CR) level, which I think is around 8:00-8:30 for the first mile. Somewhere in there.

             

            Whatever path you choose, I wish you good health and great success. Keep going!

            --Jimmy

            Log    PRs

              pr99 is no relation (as far as I know).

               

              I'd do a MAF test... but I'm a bit unsure about the 180-age thing. I'm 45 and 135 HR seems very slow to me... 145 feels pretty damn slow. I think I have a relatively high max HR... I haven't gone out of the way to test it recently, but I did notice that I hit 194 during a 5k recently and that wasn't with a big all-out sprint for the line. I feel pretty sure I could push it over 200 if I went out of my way to do so.

              jimmyb


              port-a-bella-potty

                pr99 is no relation (as far as I know).

                 

                I'd do a MAF test... but I'm a bit unsure about the 180-age thing. I'm 45 and 135 HR seems very slow to me... 145 feels pretty damn slow. I think I have a relatively high max HR... I haven't gone out of the way to test it recently, but I did notice that I hit 194 during a 5k recently and that wasn't with a big all-out sprint for the line. I feel pretty sure I could push it over 200 if I went out of my way to do so.

                 

                I'll ask PR99. As far as I know he's related to pr42 through pr66. He told me the northeast pr's will have nothing to do with any PR's from the southeast. Some old family squabble.

                 

                The MAF test, or MAF pace always feels slow at first. Essentially the MAF will tell you your aerobic speed--The MAF is at the point where you are using almost entirely slow twitch (fat-burning/aerobic/endurance) fibers and just a little anaerobic is starting to come in. On a graph, during an RQ test on a treadmill with a gas analyzer,  you would see a sudden steep rise in HR when the anaerobic fibers start to get used.

                 

                It will feel slow, but even just a mile test done at MAF after a 20 minute warm-up below MAF will tell you a lot. If your aerobic system is really improving and building the tests will get faster. If not, they will stagnate or regress. A sudden regression during training can indicate the beginning of over-training. The speed can get quite fast. See MArk Allen's story. Also, some of the people on this board have gotten quite fast at MAF.

                 

                The MAF has nothing to do with MHR and everything to do with how much sugar and fat you are burning at a given HR. Once those anaerobic fibers get recruited, sugar burning increases. Building endurance is pretty much all about building your slow-twitch fibers. Some fast-twitch can be converted to have properties of slow-twitch--long runs will take care of that. But the meat of the mission is the development of the slow-twitch fibers and your ability to go faster and faster while using fat as fuel. The marathon requires that you as much fat in the fuel mix as possible in order to preserve glycogen. Once the glycogen is used up, you hit the wall.

                 

                The MAF test is a monitor of your speed while using predominantly fat as fuel.

                 

                Good luck!

                --Jimmy

                Log    PRs

                  I tried a bit of Hadd, but I didn't do more than a summer of it. so I can't really tell you much other than I think his heart rate zones were a bit off for me. because he assumes that the 180 zone in the Hadd test is a very hard run, but to me it was always pretty easy. so something is definitely off there. so, I did modify his plan a little bit by making maffetone HR my base HR and I threw in a few 140-145 Hadd base zone runs. and ILTHR was 5-10 above MAF HR.

                   

                  if 135 seems slow, that might or might not be a problem. all I can say, to me his 140-145 zone was way too low Smile my maffetone number gives me a higher zone than 140-145, and this seemed better... I don't like how Hadd groups everyone with a 193+ max together.

                   

                  but commenting on maxHR, it doesn't necessarily mean too much whether it is 195 or 200. just because it is 200, your LT might still be relatively low compared to someone else with a 200 max. and your marathon pace seems to be around 160 based on that Hadd test, so your LT doesn't seem that high anyway... (and I have a theory that a high HRmax compared to LT just means you have good anaerobic capabilities. so this is why the maxHR on its own isn't very good data.)

                   

                  I haven't tried the advanced marathoning thing, but I looked at it a while ago. I assume you mean pfitzingers 18/70 stuff. I only looked at the 18/55, according to his plan description I had the base requirements to start with it (this was when I ran a higher volume than now) but when I read through the plan I just found it an awfully injury prone plan. either that, or the requirements he set for starting are too lenient.

                   

                  overall, I'm sure that runs much slower than marathon pace will do a lot of good for your endurance. the question is how slow is slow enough but if you want to be sure, go really slow. but do not forget the volume has to be large too.

                  Dom77mu


                    Long runs should be 10-20% slower then marathon pace. 

                     

                    http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=4342 By Pete Pfitzinger

                    jimmyb


                    port-a-bella-potty

                      Long runs should be 10-20% slower then marathon pace. 

                       

                      http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=4342 By Pete Pfitzinger

                       

                      The question begs: how do you know what your marathon pace is?

                      A common scenario: A person just finished a 4:20 (9:55 pace) marathon for a PR

                      and wants to break 4:00 (9:09 pace) in the next one. Following Pfitzingers suggestion,

                      you get for 9:09 pace:

                       

                      20%= 10:58

                      10%= 10:04

                       

                      Unless the person has gone out and worked aerobic base for 12-16 weeks--properly-- prior to beginning these types of long runs, and had actually improved by 8% (4:00 is 8% faster than 4:20), the  first long run will actually be much closer to the actual marathon pace (9:55).

                       

                      The 10:58 is 11% slower

                      The 10:04 is 1% slower

                       

                      The possibility exists that this person could go out and run a 20-miler very close, if not at, current marathon pace. If the person lost some aerobic fitness before beginning marathon training, this could be even faster than marathon pace.

                       

                      In my opinion, if you're going to follow Pfitzinger's plan, use his HR spreads for long runs, which I think are 65-78% HRR, which in the case of a 197 MHR with a RHR of 48 would be 145-165 bpm.  Starting in the lower end and only getting to the top by the end of the run. You then can get a vague idea of marathon pace, as what you are running should be in the neighborhood of 10-20% of what your actual marathon pace is.

                       

                      Another way is to do a tempo run at marathon HR and that will give you a closer idea of what might be possible.

                       

                      --Jimmy

                       

                       

                      Log    PRs

                        So since the HM I was due to race today was postponed I went out and did 19km at a constant 135 HR as an experiment. Data here. No suprise that it's slow... I was surprised that I didn't really seem to slow at all at the constant heart rate. It wasn't on a track, but it was a pretty flat run.

                          So since the HM I was due to race today was postponed I went out and did 19km at a constant 135 HR as an experiment. Data here. No suprise that it's slow... I was surprised that I didn't really seem to slow at all at the constant heart rate. It wasn't on a track, but it was a pretty flat run.

                           

                          9:51 isn't that slow for such a low HR. nice start!!

                             

                            9:51 isn't that slow for such a low HR. nice start!!

                             

                            Thanks, but as I say I wonder whether it's taxing me enough ... The expectation from what I've read about MAF tests should be that you get progressively slower at the constant heart rate, but that didn't seem to happen during this run.

                             

                            I "nearly" qualify for the +5bpm thing in the description of how to figure out you MAF heart rate. I might repeat the experiment today at 140 HR on the same course to see what that looks like. 

                               

                              Thanks, but as I say I wonder whether it's taxing me enough ... The expectation from what I've read about MAF tests should be that you get progressively slower at the constant heart rate, but that didn't seem to happen during this run.

                               

                              I "nearly" qualify for the +5bpm thing in the description of how to figure out you MAF heart rate. I might repeat the experiment today at 140 HR on the same course to see what that looks like. 

                               

                               

                              supposedly you can get the 5 extra bpm if you've been running for 2 years and improving during this time.

                               

                              according to this formula I can't take it because it's only 1 yr for me...

                               

                              as for the slowing, you can only check that reliably if you go on a track or other measured loop, you should not rely on the garmin this much unless you know by other means that the course points, in your case, each mile split, are correctly placed. elevation also must be at zero or if not zero, at a constant level, preferably net elevation would be zero though, which is again only achievable on a track or a mile long or other short loop.

                               

                              another note on the slowing, if you really don't slow much, that according to formationflier means it's just fine that way. he always said that a good MAF training HR would be one where you don't slow over 5 miles. however, Maffetone says you should slow a little bit, but not much.

                               

                              myself, I don't slow at all a few beats below MAF, at MAF HR (i.e. 180-age) sometimes a little slowing sometimes not, guess it depends on the day :P then in the zone that includes MAF as the bottom and MAF+20 as ceiling, the slowing rate doesn't really change much, it's a few beats in 1hour. not much. beyond MAF+20 the slowdown or increase in HR if pace is kept constant, is bigger.

                               

                              so if we were to go by Maffetone I should really add a couple of beats to 180-age because that's where I can reliably get the slowing effect. at 180-age I don't always get it... right now, I don't get hung up on the beats as I'm trying out another approach for low intensity training / base building.

                                Yeah... I think I've decided I'm going to do a couple of months of low-intensity, high volume stuff. But I'm not sure I'm going to spend all my time watching my heart rate and making sure it's on exactly the right rate (whatever "right" might be for me)... just check every so often to see it's not too high.

                                12