HADD's 2400m test - big difference between HR zones

^ wrote:

170/min you are traveling @ 7:15/mi ... eyeballing this you’re not in shape or devoid of any talent. nearly what ~ 80-85% max hr ... ?

I don't recall saying anything about thinking I'm a talent :-\

The test results and my questions were posted to get help/advice with my training.

The easiest way to determine now that you have a Garmin with chest strap, is to look at the app for the chart plotting the pace and HR after your long easy run. If HR increases while pace remains the same then it's too fast (even if it's only, say, 65% max HR). If you do 80% max and it's still flat after an hour, you might try to increase the pace next time around. You might be very fit (some elites can push it to 90%).

OK, thank you very much!

.... So, pretty much doing a long slow run, and make sure HR stays the same, with the same pace. Even if my HR is 80% of max, it may be aerobic/"low pulse" workout, just as long as the HR doesn't drift?

Hoek wrote:

The easiest way to determine now that you have a Garmin with chest strap, is to look at the app for the chart plotting the pace and HR after your long easy run. If HR increases while pace remains the same then it's too fast (even if it's only, say, 65% max HR). If you do 80% max and it's still flat after an hour, you might try to increase the pace next time around. You might be very fit (some elites can push it to 90%).

OK, thank you very much!

.... So, pretty much doing a long slow run, and make sure HR stays the same, with the same pace. Even if my HR is 80% of max, it may be aerobic/"low pulse" workout, just as long as the HR doesn't drift?

If you are indeed can do it with stable HR beyond 1 hour, then I think it's still aerobic. I don't you can tell easily your real max HR. The age formula are likely to be wrong and empirically test isn't always successful. The point is, you don't need to know. The landmark points (max steady state, marathon, threshold, etc) are the important ones. Their % to max HR are individual-specific and shifting in response to training. If you can get them directly from you data, no need to approximate by % max HR.

banned Pete - The fact you got personal advice from Hadd got my attention...

I'm curious just how easy Hadd intended your daily bread and butter running to be. In Joe's case in the sample schedule, he shows the progression from Approx 60 mpw to 69 mpw to 80+ mpw. In those sample weeks he shows a few target HR's:

1. a couple of days a week at target 145 (75% MaxHR)

2. a couple more days at 150 (78% MaxHR)

3. another non-workout day at 155 (80% MaxHR)

4. the actual easy workout days that shift up in effort over time as LTHR goes up.

If you don't mind sharing, did he prescribe something similar to you? In the workouts 1-3 listed above, were the effort levels important to hit while following his training? In other words, was there an effort level deemed to be "too easy" following this method? I'm thinking of a situation where your average HR for a run might be somewhere between 120 - 135 bpm. Too soft?

I'm also curious how your daily training felt from a perceived effort level (excluding the workout days near LTHR). Was it dead easy, fast-easy or something in between?

Hoek wrote:

HR - Pace (min/km) - Total time (min:sec) - Diff (total time in seconds)

140 - 6:13 - 15:15 - 0

150 - 5:27 - 13:16 - 119

160 - 4:53 - 11:58 - 78

170 - 4:30 - 11:08 - 50

180 - 4:03 - 10:08 - 60

If you convert your pace to speed, you will see an almost perfectly linear development. This has been the case with all HADD test results I have seen so far.

The apparent non-linearity comes from using pace instead of speed. And pace is a rather shitty measure of intensity. If we go to extremes, and you compare running at 30 km/h and 40 km/h, the pace difference is only 30 seconds per km. I bet you will feel that those 30 seconds were really hard earned - which is well reflected in the 10 km/h speed difference.

If we go to the other extreme and compare "running" at 3 km/ and 4 km/h, the pace difference is 5 minutes per km. I bet you will not be able to feel much intensity difference from those 5 minutes - which is well reflected in the only 1 km/h speed difference.

Regarding the difficulty of hitting your HR targets:

I have always wondered why this test (and other similar tests) use HRs as targets and record the resulting speeds or paces.

I would use speed or pace as a target for each interval, and then I would record the resulting HR. This is much easier to control, at least if you have a watch with a reliable speed or pace indication.

Of course, with my approach you will have to do some trial and error the first time to find a suitable set of intervals. And as you get faster, you will probably have to skip the slowest interval and add another, faster interval at the other end while keeping the medium intervals unchanged. But this is perfectly doable and will only happen rarely.

BHViking wrote:banned Pete - The fact you got personal advice from Hadd got my attention...

BHViking,

I've written out my experiences with his training before at great length, after he passed away in 2011. Here's maybe the most complete summary I wrote down:

Easy running, which comprised the bulk of my mileage, was always legitimately easy, never "fast-easy." During base training, the aerobic work sessions were invigorating and "comfortably hard." During race preparation phases, the faster sessions were hard, building toward very-nearly-unbelievably-hard at peak work sessions (once aerobically fit enough to survive and benefit from them).

I'm not inclined to write a whole lot more, as I've already invested a lot of time capturing my experiences as clearly, completely and accurately as I could. Best of luck!

Hoek wrote:

So it's pretty normal values I suppose, and they will change with continous training at low HR.

With this knowlegde, can anything be said about the higher HR zones, and the fact that the gaps are tighter there? Does it mean anything that the three last zones are in the 4-5 min/km range?

Once again I can only echo much of what numerologist said, and for detailed case study of Hadd training, Pete has written quite a lot about his personal experience with Hadd's training, especially the "real training" after a "Joe" type buildup.

To answer your question, I don't know what can be said about the higher heart rates, except that the paces should probably get a little faster too, depending on your talent and training. If you are unfit aerobically, the main focus of Hadd's preliminary build-up phase of training is to make the easy efforts much faster. Once that is done, then the "real" training can begin.

Keep in mind I'm not a physiologist, but here is how I see the heart rate physiology from all the things I've read, and from my own personal experience:

You heart rate will drop for two reasons:

1) In the short term your heart gets "bigger" and each beat will simply pump a higher amount of blood

2) In the mid to long term, your body gets better at "orchestrating" the many things that happen in parallel when you run, minimizing any opposing resistance, improving your form, etc., making you both more efficient and more economical, requiring less energy overall to realize the same work -- something comparable to a high school orchestra evolving into a symphony orchestra.

Physiological (or pseudo-physiological) parameters (AeT, AT, LT, Max-LASS, VT, ...) will have the opposite trend -- they will start occurring at higher and higher heart rates as you learn to tolerate higher loads for longer. You may also find that your max-HR drops, as it becomes harder and harder to push yourself to the same high level of effort that would max your heart rate like before.

I think the most important feedback for me with heart rate monitoring was that I had always been running my easy runs too fast. I think that is a common mistake. But once I learned that lesson, I started losing interest in heart rate monitoring, content to run easy and long runs by feel, and structured workouts by time targets over a known distance based on current and target race times. Having said that, I did find that for the same pace, my HR dropped about 10 beats across the board over the course of about 6 years, after I was fit enough to run my first marathon in my 40s, on comparatively much lower volumes of training ranging from 60-100 km/week, combined with cycling in the summer, sometimes in the Alps, and skiing in the winter, also sometimes in the Alps.

banned Pete wrote:

BHViking wrote:banned Pete - The fact you got personal advice from Hadd got my attention...

BHViking,

I've written out my experiences with his training before at great length, after he passed away in 2011. Here's maybe the most complete summary I wrote down:

https://can.milesplit.com/discussion/90162

Easy running, which comprised the bulk of my mileage, was always legitimately easy, never "fast-easy." During base training, the aerobic work sessions were invigorating and "comfortably hard." During race preparation phases, the faster sessions were hard, building toward very-nearly-unbelievably-hard at peak work sessions (once aerobically fit enough to survive and benefit from them).

I'm not inclined to write a whole lot more, as I've already invested a lot of time capturing my experiences as clearly, completely and accurately as I could. Best of luck!

Thanks Pete!!!

I will read through that. I haven't read through it yet but at first glance it looks like you put a lot of work into sharing your experience. I certainly appreciate that.

Thank you for breaking down how you felt as well. This is giving me confidence going forward in how to approach easy vs aerobic workouts vs race sharpening. I don't know if I've ever been fit enough to survive the race prep phases but I hope to get there sometime in the next year or so.

Thanks!!!

Today I ran 80 minutes on a treadmill and averaged 139 BPM, which is just below 70% of max HR. The last 20 minutes the HR shifted between 140-141, but overall it was very stable between 137-140. What's your recommendation on my next run - should I continue and grind with this HR, or bump it up some, if so, how much?

...

During race preparation phases, the faster sessions were hard, building toward very-nearly-unbelievably-hard at peak work sessions (once aerobically fit enough to survive and benefit from them).

How do you know when you're aerobically fit and that the build phase is over?

Use speed wrote:

Hoek wrote:

HR - Pace (min/km) - Total time (min:sec) - Diff (total time in seconds)

140 - 6:13 - 15:15 - 0

150 - 5:27 - 13:16 - 119

160 - 4:53 - 11:58 - 78

170 - 4:30 - 11:08 - 50

180 - 4:03 - 10:08 - 60

If you convert your pace to speed, you will see an almost perfectly linear development. This has been the case with all HADD test results I have seen so far.

The apparent non-linearity comes from using pace instead of speed. And pace is a rather shitty measure of intensity. If we go to extremes, and you compare running at 30 km/h and 40 km/h, the pace difference is only 30 seconds per km. I bet you will feel that those 30 seconds were really hard earned - which is well reflected in the 10 km/h speed difference.

That makes alot of sense.

I've always thought of running as something that has to do with:

- Pace

- Distance

- Time

- (Intensity (HR))

...and they're all involved, that is, distance + time + (intensity) = pace. Or pace + distance + (intensity) = time.

I guess you're right on it when using speed instead of pace to compare the different sessions, since it puts the included factors in another perspective. I never thought of it that way :)

What's the pace look like over time? If you have to drop a lot to maintain it then it's not aerobic. If the pace is also stable then yes, it's aerobic. (It should be. Based on your initial data, I don't expect you got outside aerobic until 160 or so).

What to do next? Well, do you want to just figure out things or do you want to train? For the former, you just check out several higher HR points to see where the limit is (that would something like your maximum-steady-state HR/pace). To train, then it depends on what approach you believe in (a big subject of constant debate around here). But in any case, you have a more precise way to figure out the key landmarks in your HR-pace profile.

What's the pace look like over time? If you have to drop a lot to maintain it then it's not aerobic. If the pace is also stable then yes, it's aerobic. (It should be. Based on your initial data, I don't expect you got outside aerobic until 160 or so).

What to do next? Well, do you want to just figure out things or do you want to train? For the former, you just check out several higher HR points to see where the limit is (that would something like your maximum-steady-state HR/pace). To train, then it depends on what approach you believe in (a big subject of constant debate around here). But in any case, you have a more precise way to figure out the key landmarks in your HR-pace profile.

The pace was the same through the whole session, even though my Garmin watch said differently, sometimes. It was done on a treadmill with the same, constant speed.

Does this mean I can build a big aerobic base using, maybe, a HR between 140-160, if you're correct?

I'm having some difficulties grasping this, since the MAF method suggests 180 - age (to just get SOME value, to start with) which would mean 137 BPM for me, and that means - according to my max HR (200, measured with chest strap 18 months ago) - that I workout in zone 1. But on the other hand ... my zone 2 has ranges from 140-155. Would you say this supports your theory?

Next, I would like to do both - both figure things out and train. Meaning, fully understand what system I train, and which benefits to expect. I have no specific race coming up, so the pace and distance isn't of much importance right now. Aiming for 100K/week. Just want to build a big, strong base and be injury free and have continuation in my running.

Thank you for taking your time answering my, sometimes strange, questions!

Hey Hoek,

This is a question that I don't think was ever really resolved very clearly. There is also a question of terrain. For example, nearly all of my normal routes happen to have a net negative elevation of about -0.5% grade which is just enough to actually increase my pace at the same HR at 60 minutes in most cases. There is also the problem of floating around in the target HR range. Sometimes you slow down just because you are closer to the lower end of the range. Nailing the exact same HR for the entire run requires so much micromanagement that it kind of takes the joy out of it and is extremely difficult to do without constantly shifting gears which is unnatural.

In a separate topic thread I saw something similar but taking the opposite input/output approach. Basically the idea was to warm up and then run a constant pace for 60 minutes on a track or treadmill. Take the average HR from the first 30 minutes and the second 30 minutes.

HR Drift = ((2nd half HR / 1st half HR) -1)*100%

If HR Drift is < 5% then you are theoretically below threshold and can retest at a higher pace on your next fully rested day. I don't know where 5% came from. I checked this morning's treadmill run in which I ran about 60 minutes at a constant speed and according to that equation my HR Drift was 2.04% (it was an easy run).

I don't know about you guys but I find it impossible to dial into an HR while staying smooth and relaxed. However going by perceived effort or dialing into a fixed pace is much easier to remain smooth and relaxed. That may be true because when I dial into a fixed pace, I go by Lap Pace and can nail every single target within a few seconds which is much easier than chasing an instantaneous measurement such as HR which is very stochastic in nature. I suppose chasing any averaged measurement would be easier than chasing an instantaneous one though! My HR profile always appears flat during a steady effort after a warmup unless I'm really running hard and starting to gasp for air.

BHViking wrote:

Hey Hoek,

This is a question that I don't think was ever really resolved very clearly.

Sorry, I forgot to clarify that I was referring to the question of "how do you know you mastered that zone? How do you know what acceptable levels of drift are?"

BHViking wrote:

Hey Hoek,

..

In a separate topic thread I saw something similar but taking the opposite input/output approach. Basically the idea was to warm up and then run a constant pace for 60 minutes on a track or treadmill. Take the average HR from the first 30 minutes and the second 30 minutes.

HR Drift = ((2nd half HR / 1st half HR) -1)*100%

Thank you, that seems like a very good test - I'll try that!

I'm sorry for coming up with new questions all the time, but there's some piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit for me...

I understand that training this way and that when the HR doesn't drift, that you, most likely, is below your lactate threshold (LT) and your building on your aerobic base. But does that mean that you are running "easy"?

The MAF:ers say: "You've probably run your easy days too hard" .. And therefore they (he) came up with this ball park formula (180 - age), that fits, not all, but many runners. It's a good way of keeping the whole crowd running low pulse and "easy", but it differs quite much from HADD's recommendation for "Joe" who had a max HR of 193 (mine is ~200 so I should use the same HR zones) and his easy runs of 145 BPM. My zone 2 is in the range of 140-155 (70-77.5% HR max) based on lactate information gathered while running with my Garmin. So my question is: can I be considered running "easy"/aerobic building/not to fast by running in zone 2 (140-155)?

I just don't want to do the mistake of speeding up my runs, meaning that I "run easy days too hard" and not building my aerobic base in the most optimal way.

Thank you for your patience!

Hi,

The aerobic are ranges from recovery pace to various easy to maximum steady-state (which is still below marathon pace). All of them are below LT.

It doesn't mean you have to do your aerobic train at maximum stead-state all the time. Aside from energy system, you should consider fatigue, etc., particularly when start doing high mileage. If you're stiff after days of high mileage (or want to save freshness for a workout the following day), drop your aerobic run to super easy. At other time when you're fresher, you might want to do close to maximum-steady.

Don't worry about not improving. Even LT or HIIT contribute to your aerobic to some extent. Don't take MAF or HADD principle too far (to the point they're not meant to be). They are best understand as conterbalance to people running close to LT or whatever the fastest they can do for the training distance all the time. Balance training (80% aerobic, 15% MP to LT, 5% HIIT, or similar, doesn't have to be the exact number) should be safe and you'll improve your baseline. Vary the level of easy within that 80% as needed and as you feel like.

The numerologist wrote:

Hi,

The aerobic are ranges from recovery pace to various easy to maximum steady-state (which is still below marathon pace). All of them are below LT.

..

Don't worry about not improving...

Thanks, that is a very good answer, clearing some confusion around this matter!

I'll do as you suggest and vary my aerobic training, nicely below the LT (which I'm going to find exactly where it is, by going too a lab, some day this month). I'm also considering doing some of the runs based on pace, and not worry too much about HR ranges, and analyze the (HR) data afterwards.

Hoek wrote:

The numerologist wrote:

Hi,

The aerobic are ranges from recovery pace to various easy to maximum steady-state (which is still below marathon pace). All of them are below LT.

..

Don't worry about not improving...

Thanks, that is a very good answer, clearing some confusion around this matter!

I'll do as you suggest and vary my aerobic training, nicely below the LT (which I'm going to find exactly where it is, by going too a lab, some day this month). I'm also considering doing some of the runs based on pace, and not worry too much about HR ranges, and analyze the (HR) data afterwards.

Hoek,

This is pretty much what I do on my general aerobic daily runs. I don't look at my watch and just run relaxed somewhere in the spectrum that Numerologist suggests and fairly spontaneously as it comes to me. The pace/HR is unknown to me until I look at it afterwards and I don't really let myself get hung up on daily results.

Just a few observations that I've made on HR that I don't often see mentioned:

-Daydreaming about racing during an EZ run will temporarily raise my HR up to 10 bpm even if my effort/pace remains the same.

-Listening to inspiring or fast music during an EZ run will also temporarily raise my HR up to 10 bpm at even effort/pace. (Damn you Motley Crue!) Although, I only usually listen to music on the treadmill.

-As my load increases, my HR seems to drop quite a bit. For example, at the beginning of a heavy training cycle before running California International Marathon my perceived anaerobic threshold was about 172 bpm. After several months of 70 - 100 mile weeks, my perceived anaerobic threshold had dropped to around 162 bpm. I basically noted the point where my breathing seemed to shift gears and drop the effort down a notch to stay calm (an effort that I could maintain for a very long time). Fully tapered, in the race itself I was running a pretty steady, comfortable 170 bpm despite finding 162 a problem on untapered legs just a few weeks prior. So, I think HR drops quite a bit on fully loaded legs.