for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Hadd's Approach To Distance Running

1 lurker | 168 watchers

teapothouse Dec 2017 6:43pm, 17 Dec 2017 33 posts	Quote Pin teapothouse Looks good brunski, I will be intrigued to see how you get on. On my first test this winter I ducked out of 165bpm as after 8k + a warm up I was finished. I find that you kind of need to know the pace you expect to be at for each level or you can go off too fast since you will have a slow bpm initially and then overshoot. It takes 500-750m before things settle down and your achieve the steady pace at the bpm. The heart rate lags behind effort of course but my wrist based hrm makes it even worse!
Brunski Dec 2017 7:24pm, 17 Dec 2017 634 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Yeah, should be Friday 1st thing when I get to do the test. I'll make sure I'm pretty well rested and fuelled for it! Guessing a bit here but going by my 70% runs (116bpm) I'd expect roughly 8:00-8:15 for 115 bpm, and based on a few races I'd expect about 6:00-6:15 for the 155 bpm. Filling in the gaps a bit but something like the following is a rough guess: 115 should be about 8:10 m/mile 125 7:40 135 7:10 145 6:40 155 should be about 6:10 m/mile Looking forward to it (I think)
Daz Love Dec 2017 8:01pm, 17 Dec 2017 851 posts	Quote Pin Daz Love Look forward to seeing the results Brunski. I have not really dipped my toe back into this yet. I really still struggle to run at anything under 75% (even 75% is tough) I done a 10k race 4 weeks ago and was 6:07 pace for around 95% (190 avg based on 200 max although I have never done a proper max test, I see 198 at the end of 10k) If I go out and run at 8:20 pace I still see over 80%, (was 82% the other night and felt very slow and easy) I think it would be over 9mm at 75% which seems too big a range.
Brunski Dec 2017 8:33pm, 17 Dec 2017 635 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Cheers Daz, I'd guess your max is slightly higher than 200, not much but maybe 205? I think Hadd recommended running no slower than 5k race pace + 3min per mile, so maybe run as much as you can in the 8:40 region until the HR at that pace comes down, this may take a month or so but it should happen. I think running at 82% and you're missing out on a chunk of the potential benefits of this sort of training.
Brunski Dec 2017 10:35am, 19 Dec 2017 639 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Brought the Hadd test forward to today as had to take the Mrs' car to work. It was still pretty dark when I started and the track had a bit of frost In patches that meant it was a bit slippy, but didn't affect running that I could notice. I decided to go with the following HRs (my max is 165). I tweaked the HRs and went 115-151, instead of 115-155 as wanted to make sure I could complete the session and didn't fancy running solo at 155bpm at 7:30am on a slightly slippy track! 115 = 8:17 per mile 124 = 7:28 per mile 133 = 7:06 per mile 142 = 6:32 per mile 151 = 6:04 per mile Pretty much as expected in terms of paces, but good to have something to compare with in the future.
Brunski Dec 2017 10:40am, 19 Dec 2017 640 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Oh, and as suggested by tph I stuck with 5 laps (2k) at each HR with 90 secs standing rest between sets, I was very disciplined with the HRs and the graph looks very neat!
Daz Love Dec 2017 12:07pm, 19 Dec 2017 852 posts	Quote Pin Daz Love Interesting. Any others done the test? Would be good to see if the pace increase per mile c25-30 secs per mile is typical for each 9 beat increase. I am sure ptb has spoken before about each x amount of beats equates to x amount of seconds per mile.
Boab Dec 2017 3:41pm, 19 Dec 2017 8,190 posts	Quote Pin Boab Yes Daz, think it can be different for everyone. I remember that 10 beats equated to 30 seconds per mile for me, roughly. That didn't change even when getting fitter, it just meant that the paces moved down the way across the range of HR bands. I wonder if you started to see some discrepancy in that correlation, would it indicate a problem?
Brunski Dec 2017 1:59pm, 20 Dec 2017 641 posts	Quote Pin Brunski Quick question on the sub-LT runs. Is it ALWAYS best to start them from 80% and work up, even if you have come to this from a year of hard running and decent mileage? I've done 2600 miles for the year to date and I'm relatively confident that my LT is around 147 (and the latest watch based LT test came in at 148 a few months ago). I ran for 7 miles at 80% (132bpm) last Saturday on a windy/lumpy route and it felt pretty easy, so wasn't sure whether to stick with that or push it up a bit?. I might split the difference and do an hour on Saturday @ 140bpm (approx. 85%) and see what happens there, I could always drop it back down to 80% if I see significant drift or a drop in pace. Any thoughts? Cheers!
Dillthedog57 Dec 2017 4:45pm, 20 Dec 2017 1,898 posts	Quote Pin Dillthedog57 I guess that if you can run at 80% for an hour, without your pace dropping off, then you are good to move up to 85. If you can't, then more work at that hr is still required?