I guess I am under the impression, maybe wrong impression, that it is impossible for anyone for run a marathon with a HRavg over 180, no matter how high their max HR. If that's true, my LT can't be any higher than 180, and is probably more like 175.
If my LT is really up near 197 and I can run a marthon with a HRavg in the 190s, then that changes everything. However, I am a little afraid to train and race a marathon with my HR in the 190s if I should really be in the 170s. I may be able to do a 15k in 4 weeks that will give me some info.
Log PRs Crusted Salt #180 Arms In The Air comics #8
I understand that Hadd says that about 193+ MHR in those posts that have been compiled.
You probably can't go wrong following his advice for your first marathon coming up.
Team Oregon Pace calculator gives you 187bpm for the marathon (about 86%). Who is right?
You will find that out as you go along.The way I see it , if you are really able to
do 187, and if you are using a HR monitor to govern your race, and you try to
average 177, you can't go wrong. If that's your plan, I recommend sticking with it.
If you decide to make a pace plan, then wear your HRM
anyway just to record what happens as you execute your pace plan.
Mainly, my discussion with you is to share what I'm thinking when I see your info. If your 5k pace effort matches mine and the Team Oregon Pace Wizard's, and I have 20 bpm less than you for an MHR, and if your other %MHR efforts for other distances also match mine and the calculator, then I don't know why your MRP % effort wouldn't match mine (87%) or the calculator.
Team Oregon Pace Wizard gives me a 171 (86%) based on my 199 MHR, I averaged 173 (87%) at Sugarloaf (all splits averaged in). My MHR could be a few beats higher, 199 is the highest I've seen.
I did Hadd for my first marathon (4:14). I thought it was a fun, worthy experiment. I didn't do well at the marathon for what could have been a variety of reasons, which could have included that the Hadd program doesn't work, or it could have been about 5 other reasons, the main one being that it was my first marathon and I had only been running a year and a half. Even though indicators said I could go much faster, I couldn't that day. I'll never know why really, I can only speculate (it was the pancakes!!!). All my other race times got a lot better, due to the volume of aerobic miles.
It was always in the back of my mind that Hadd is basically some anonymous guy who posted on the Letsrun Message Board. Whereas Maffetone, Parker, Pfitzinger, Galloway, Higdon and Daniels are all out in the open, and we know their experience, we don't really know Hadd's. we have no clue if he was a shmo like me, just playing around with stats and numbers and who experimented on one guy, or a guy just making it all up, or some big name coach somewhere who preferred to stay anonymous.
If you have other race info with HR data, I would love to see it. See how it matches up with the pace wizard.
Master of Inconsistency
Ain't Wastin' Time No More !
Here are a few articles about predicting pace:
PICK YOUR PERFECT MARATHON PACE
McMilllan on Predicting MRP
End of book 2!
Okay- here are my indicators to date...
1. Last night's MAF test on the treadmill: 9:05 MAF pace, which projects to a 3:34 marathon. Note I am faster on the treadmill than outdoor runs at the same HR.
2. Last night's MAF test on the treadmill (last 5 miles only, dropping the first faster mile): 9:12 MAF pace, which projects to a 3:36 marathon. Note I am faster on the treadmill than outdoor runs at the same HR.
3. Hadd Test on Feb 3, outdoor track: My 170 HR indicator interval was an 8:42 pace, which projects to a 3:48 marathon.
4. McMillan calculator based on my best 10k (15 months ago) projects a 3:39 marathon
5. McMillan calculator based on my most recent 10k (3 months ago) projects a 3:48 marathon (this 10k was not a full effort, though).
6. McMillan calculator based on my best 5k (11 months ago) projects a 3:37 marathon.
7. McMillan calculator based on my most recent 5k (4 months ago) projects a 3:46 marathon.
So, my range is from 3:34 to 3:48, with a median of 3:41. If I throw the above 7 projections in a pot and average them, I get 3:40 for an average projection.
Based on all of this, I was going use a marathon goal time for training pace purposes as 3:40 (even if this is a little fast for me now, maybe this will be more realistic with another 7 weeks of sharpening). Any comments or suggestions? Should I be more conservative and use the slower indicators of 3:48?
Max McMaffelow Esq.