Is HADD style heart rate training rubbish?

At what pace are your runs? Do you just go by feel on most of them? Let's say that you were going to run 75 mile/wk-- how would you organize them?

Thanks.

For the original poster, your situation of not improving using only slower running is common. I have received numerous emails by those who followed what they THOUGHT was the Hadd approach. I do think that most people don't do the faster distance runs that he includes after the intitial phase of training. However, as a rule, I will tell you that your slow distance running approach (gernalized Hadd) will be more effective if you include 1-2 weekly sessions of faster aerobic (85%-90% of max h.r.) in some form. Give it a try and enjoy the benefits. Tinman

See, I still am in the first phase of his "system." Like I say, I am following it loosely. I am more influenced by Dave Welch's methods in which he had a runner run 8-12 weeks at 70-80% of maximum heart rate, and perhaps twenty minutes a week at 90%. The day after the long run is at or under 70%. After the base phase, intervals begin. Pretty Lydiard like except for the emphasis placed on maintaining a certain heart rate. Obviously, pretty similar to HADD as well. Dave said that a runner should make continual improvements in aerobic pace; he would have a runner start the base phase running 8:30 miles at 145 beats per minute, and 8 weeks later be running close to 6 minute miles at 145. I've been monitoring my pace for several weeks, and my paces at 75 and 80% have not increased at ALL.

It is likely that you will benefit from doing aerobic fartlek workouts once per week. Continue doing your weekly run at 90% heart rate steady state for 20 minutes, too. For the fartlek pickups, try doing about 15-16 minutes worth of pickups that are 2-5 minutes in length with a couple minutes of easy running between each pickup. The pickups should be 15k-20k pace, I believe.

Now, one question: Do you know what your true max HR is? Many people use a generic formula and assume they have a certain heart rate...which is lower than their actual heart rate. At age 30, I still had a max HR of 204, for example, so the formula was off for me. I ask this because you may be training at less than 70-80% of your heart rate max and you don't even know it.

Best wishes... Tinman

-MP runs are done between 80-85% of HRmax. I stop looking at HR in the last 2-3 miles. I just run slightly faster than what I\'ve been doing but I stay in control. I try to finish knowing that if I wanted to I could do 75% to 100% of that run again (just like Hadd suggests).

-Long runs are almost always progression runs (it does get tiring running slow for so long). I start at 70% HR max for the first 1-8 miles. I used to let my HRM beep to let me know when I get ahead of myself, but now I don\'t even bother. I occasionally glance at it, but I usually know what it\'s going to be. Pace right now is somewhere between 7:30-8:00. I pick it up to between 75-80% HRmax through the middle part of my run. Then depending on how I feel 2-8 miles from the finish, I\'ll run MP pace the remainder regardless of what my HRM says. I used to be totally wiped out by this run for several days. Now, I\'m down to just a few hours.

-I bring along my HRM on my trail runs but it doesn\'t dictate pace. I push the uphills (most of these uphills are short, but plenty of them) and take it easy on the downhills). None of these hills are more than 45 seconds long. Most are more like 10-20 seconds long.

-The easy days (6 milers) are when my HRM comes into play. It\'s so easy to push these runs. My HRM is the only thing that slows me down on these runs. I have forgotten my HRM on a number of occasions, and I always run them too fast. With my HRM, I stay between 70-75%. It\'s agonizing sometimes, but I think it makes me better.

Yes, my max is tested and true at 200. No formulas here. Running easy 9-10 hours or so a week, with 20 minutes at 90% and a fartlek, what kind of improvement in aerobic pace can be expected over a given period? I am willing to stick with running slow for a few months or longer if I feel it will help me in the long run, but I must see SOME improvement in aerobic pace at a given heart rate. I've run 4:30 and 28:30 (5 miles) off less than ideal training, and haven't raced for nearly a year. Being used to running 7-8 minute miles for easy runs, these "slow" runs are frustrating when I see no improvement in pace.

If I had to run 75mpw, which may be quite likely this coming fall. I would do it like this using the same guidelines above:

M-12-15MP run

T-8 mile

W-10 mile (tempo/hill)

TH-6 mile

F-18-23 mile run

Sa-5

S-5

Total 64-72

If I wasn't so constrained on the weekends, I would push my longrun to Saturday. Allowing me to up my mileage a little bit on TH and F.

WHOA!!! You need to clarify what type of 75 mile week you are shooting for. Your plans is not applicable to a runner preparing for xc.

Notwithstanding wrote:

If I had to run 75mpw, which may be quite likely this coming fall. I would do it like this using the same guidelines above:

M-12-15MP run

T-8 mile

W-10 mile (tempo/hill)

TH-6 mile

F-18-23 mile run

Sa-5

S-5

Total 64-72

If I wasn't so constrained on the weekends, I would push my longrun to Saturday. Allowing me to up my mileage a little bit on TH and F.

Plus, I'm not sure about doing that far of an MP run EVERY WEEK. You will surely deplete muscle glycogen over the long haul that way. Maybe alternate that, like 12 MP one week, then 16 long the next week? I'd think everything else would be ok.

Hadd's approach is NOT for those who don't have the patience to do the work necessary to reach their potential. It will take some time to see improvements. The speend (and magnitude) of improvement will depend a lot on training background.

I started to dabble with Hadd's approach in 2003. That year I increased mileage and slowed down most of my running from 6:10 plus/minus to 6:45-7:15ish pace. I didn't get the rest of the details right (ie the aerobic work session progression). Nevertheless I saw improvement across the board, going from:

5k - 16:48

5 mile - 27:50

10k - 34:40

HM - 1:16:40

to

5k - 16:36

5 mile - 27:35

HM - 1:16:21

Then I spent last year doing it "right" and managed:

1500 - 4:18 (debut)

3000 - 9:17 (debut)

5k - 16:13

5 mile - 26:40

10k - 34:21 (very hilly course)

I'm comtinuing to work under Hadd's guidance this year, and have gone 3 for 3 for new PRs in my last three races:

5k - 16:08

10k - 34:06 (hilly, windy)

HM - 1:15:03 (sick)

And I expect to take a good chunk off the 10k on the track within the next couple of weeks, and then plan/expect to knock good chunks off the 1500/3000 come July.

The thing about Hadd's approach is it takes patience (I've shown you three years, right?). Another thing is that what he described in the monster thread was simply his approach to aerobic conditiong, which is what he considers to be the most important part. That will get you in excellent condition to either run a decent marathon or to begin race specific training.

Anyway, I think Hadd's approach is anything BUT a load of rubbish.

I should just add, for context, that my easy running is usually at 7:30 or slower these days (often 9 min pace with my wife). However, aerobic work sessions are usually long'ish stints (say 6 miles or 2 x 5 miles) at 6:00 to 6:20 pace, depending on the HR range I'm working at. The harder race prep workouts are interval sessions at anywhere from 1500 pace to HM pace (roughly), at lost of different distances (I've done sets of 200s, 300s, 400s, 500s, 600s, 800s, 1000s, 1200s, 2000s, 3200s and up to 2 x 4800). If you've read any of the info Antonio Cabral wrote about interval training, you'd see some strong similarities (with differences, nevertheless) to the sort of race-specific work that Hadd advises.

I have read Hadd's thread and was just wondering if someone could post a typical week, year round not periodized.

I generally advise runners to do their aerobic base for 10 weeks and then transition to other more intense training. One stagnates by doing the same slow running forever, seemingly. Improvement by adding an aerobic fartlek plus the 90% hr max 20 minute run may be 2-3 seconds per mile per week, generally, I have observed, sometimes a bit more if one hasn't done enough faster running. Tinman

Smelly Cat and Brettman 10K,

I added my training in response to some questions. I am not advocating it for the public at large. You are correct in that I have my own agenda (to run a much improved marathon).

However, I disagree that this is not good base work for XC. The MP pace stuff is actually quite easy. 80-85% of HRmax is not that taxing. This is my favorite run. It's fast enough that I don't feel like I'm plodding along, yet it's slow enough to where I could hold a conversation if I needed to. It's all aerobic - I'm not even remotely close to gasping for air. I always finish strong, never hammering, just a good comfortable effort at the end. My gauge of success for this run is if I feel I could turnaround and do it again if I had to. It takes virtually no time to recover from this run. It simply is one nice, righteous run. I don't see why you can't do this every week. It's way below LT.

The only objection I see may be the long, long run. For HS, this may be a bit much, but then again, maybe not. Isn't this what Hadd, Lydiard, et. al. are preaching? Put in the miles to boost your aerobic capacity. 75 miles is still much lower than what they have proposed.

HS may not need to put in this kind of miles, but I think it doesn't hurt them if they are doing all these miles at an easy pace.

I, for one, think that this thread and subject in general is very interesting.

So, Tinman:

You think that everything stated in Hadd's giant thread makes sense?? Is there such thing as a pace that is too slow for EASY days? I remember several times seeing that Shorter logged plenty of miles on his easy days at near 9:00 pace. Several other "greats" have been known to run butt-dragging slow on easy days.

I'm not saying that slow training is the one-true-way to the top, but on easy days, does it really matter how slow you are going as long as you hit the mileage you need (desire), a long run, a 20 min LT run, some short striders at mile pace, and a run approaching the aerobic threshold???

I know from my own experience after a long layoff from running (and especially racing) that 3 months of 60 miles per week at 8:00-9:00 pace of "just running slow and FOR FUN" produced a time that was only 15 seconds off of my all-time 5k PR and I hadn't run that fast IN YEARS!!

I just found this topic quite interesting and this stuff makes sense, seeing as how the mile race is 65% aerobic, 3k is 75% aerobic, 5k is about 80% aerobic, 10k is 90%, and marathon is nearly 100% aerobic, so why not run a pace that is 100% aerobic, be it 7:30 pace (the top end) or 9:00 pace (the lower end). IF 9:00, you are doing nothing but saving energy while still accomplishing the goal for the day, right?

Good thread. Let's see if you we can clarify something.

Tinman -

Everyone seems to be dicussing what heartrate zones to train at for the bulk of their aerobic training as well as their LT days. I think the discrepencies may be in the fact that people are using differnt heartrate formulas. No?

Hadd's program seemed to be based on a literal mhr percentage ( "Joe" training @ 75% mhr or 145 most days and LT runs @ 82/83% mhr for the first several weeks - all based on a max hr of 193 for "Joe")

So which is correct? Literal or Karvonen?

Where Hadd really was right on, I think, was with his instruction to stabilize the heartrate throughout the run. Running marathons is mostly about fuel utilization and he was very specific about doing these 10 mile LT runs with a rock steady corelation between hr and pace. (allowing a slight cardiac drift of a few beats or so near the end)

This is not too far off base from Lydiard's philosophy as all his runners were marathon trained where the only hinderance to aerobic development could be going too fast.

Anyway, I'd like to see if we can get a better understanding of how to use heartrates and also translate Lydiard into Hadd, or vice versa.