|
Oct 2009
9:53am, 22 Oct 2009
311 posts
|
P.E...
I think the idea though (and dont take this as a put down) is to keep running at the lower levels to become more effcient/fitter at that lower HR? Sort of back to the toothpaste analogy?
My 70% are around 8.50mm mark but it used to be 9.40ish about six months ago. As I know do alot of running with runners who run at around 9mm to 11mm at work on top of say my schedule have I become able to 70% alot faster. Its just took time and I didnt know it was happening.
|
|
Oct 2009
10:40am, 22 Oct 2009
3,653 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
OK, I'll go and read it again. It really it one of the most painful documents to read!
I did get the 150 idea from the doc (for people who's HR is over 193) but will admit dfiting off whenever I've read more than 2 pages 
|
|
Oct 2009
10:45am, 22 Oct 2009
3,538 posts
|
Big Al Widepants
Don't want to come over all picky Keef, but your last post is a bit hard to read
|
|
Oct 2009
10:50am, 22 Oct 2009
312 posts
|
P.E...
KB your correct he does suggest that! Maybe just ignore what I said then.
|
|
Oct 2009
7:24pm, 22 Oct 2009
223 posts
|
Tiger
OK I can concur after my 7 mile sub LT run today that Hadd is not all about slow running! Frankly in my current unfit feeling state it felt about 10K race pace! I ran with a slightly faster mate who kept me at a good steady rate.
Looking forward to a nice gentle enjoy the autumn easy recovery run tomorrow
|
|
Oct 2009
8:20am, 23 Oct 2009
3,655 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
Ok, read the doc thoroughly now (and some of boab's posts at the start of the thread) and it makes more sense.
The red herring is the "if you have a max of 193 OR HIGHER" part - it's still an example for Joe's 193 and not for everything above 193 (which is how I read that part when scanning it). On the last page he says (something like) "Obviously if your max is lower/higher then change the figures in the examples". It's just a bit hidden below all the other examples.
|
|
Oct 2009
8:33am, 23 Oct 2009
1,889 posts
|
Belper Bear
I've just completed my first full week of Hadd training and thought I would share with you my comparison figures for my sub LT runs week on week. Both runs were done on my treadmill as I find it easier to control my Hr and ppace more exactly and it also avoids variables such as hills, wind etc.
RHR MHR Distance Average HR Max HR Pace per mile
Friday 16th Oct 38. 185 6.26 miles 146 158 10:09
Friday 23rd Oct 35 185 6.47 miles 146 153 09:43
I intend to keep up the same regime weekly. I have a 10k race in a month's time so will be interested to see the result.
|
|
Oct 2009
8:35am, 23 Oct 2009
3,656 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
Good stuff, BB.
I was wondering if the treadie is a good place for the test that is usually done on the track. Don't have access to a track and the treadmill would make things pretty consistant.
|
|
Oct 2009
10:51am, 23 Oct 2009
1,891 posts
|
Belper Bear
Mt formatting disappeared when I posted.
Hopefully this will be clearer:-)
-------------------------RHR--- MHR--- Distance------- Average HR----- Max HR----- Pace per mile
Friday 16th Oct------- 38---- 185------ 6.26 miles ---------146------------158------------10:09
Friday 23rd Oct------- 35---- 185------ 6.47 miles--------- 146------------ 153----------- 09:43
|
|
Oct 2009
10:56am, 23 Oct 2009
3,141 posts
|
jonp
BB, your RHR is low, I would have expected a quicker pace given your AHR?
|
