Anyone Followed the Hadd Program?

I have followed HADD for about a year three years back and got acceptable resuts for 5/10K but absolutely blew it on the marathon. To mix things up this year I have thrown caution to the wind and am doing the following:

One threshold pace run 6-miles easy + ~3.6 miles at about 10K pace

One track workout a week featuring lots of time at mile and 5K pace with long recoveries

One tempo run with 6-10 miles of marathon pace or slightly faster with total of at least 12 including warmup/cooldown.

One long run of at least 16-miles

The rest of the days are typically 10 miles easy for a weekly total of 75-85 miles

Results - AMAZING. I dropped 20+ seconds off of my mile time, am doing tempo's at what used to be my 10K PR pace a few years back and holding my goal 10K pace for 3+ miles feeling great. I have no big races planned until October but feel good about blowing away my PR's.

bump.

Pete wrote:

macker wrote:I'm anticipating that I will start to experience a lower RPE/HR ratio as I continue?

I'm not sure whether I noticed that or not. I guess I didn't notice it if I can't remember whether I noticed it. :-)

BUT, pace got faster for the same effort/HR range over time, which meant the ability to train harder and race faster.

I don't want to sound like an ass, but maybe you're overthinking it? If the running is coming easier, just run with it...

I think what macker is getting at is when will he feel comfortable at his "marathon HR"?

I've done the Hadd 2400s before and seen steady improvement but supposedly the training will make your perceived exertion at the higher HRs lesser. The last time I did a 2400 test I couldn't even complete the rep at 180HR even though I was faster. This shouldn't be happening if the lactic curve is flattening like it is supposed to.

So on one hand, it is encouraging to see the improvement in pace at a given HR, but on the other hand it seems impossible that I would ever get comfortable at my supposed marathon HR. Perhaps it needs more time but it's a bit discouraging because if I can ever manage a marathon at my supposed marathon HR, I will nail a fast one.

R you sure your HRmax has not dropped since you began training? Perhaps the marathon / 88% HRmax you are working off of has changed?

Your post suggests your AnT is now 180HR or lower (since you cannot complete 2400 at this intensity). Check again that your HRmax has not dropped.

dsdsfs wrote:I think what macker is getting at is when will he feel comfortable at his "marathon HR"?

OK, I think I get where you/he are coming from, and I thought about this a little more. On reflection, I guess I did find the effort at a given HR range to drop, generally, over time, since the length of reps at each HR range would be increased over time without any obvious increase in overall effort.

For example, the first time I tackled 87%+ effort, I did 3 x 12 minutes with 4 minute jog rest, and this was a fairly demaning session. Over time, the reps were increased to the point where I was doing 10-12 miles continuous at that HR (and roughly the same pace or a little quicker), and the session didn't feel any more demanding. So in effect, M-pace (or thereabouts) became much more comfortable over time.

If you'rew not finding the longer session to feel, over time, about the same as the shorter session when you first tackled the HR range, then it's possible maybe you haven't done enough work at the lower HR ranges to truly lock in the pace/HR at those levels. That's my guess anyway.

Before reviewing the Hadd plan, I had written down a training plan very similar to what you have stated. Although I only had two "hard" workouts consisting of a tempo and 1 day at the track. My weekend long run would alternate from just easy miles one week, to a progression run the next, and one at MP, then start the cycle all over.

I like the idea of Hadd, but the thought of running at 145 HRM (my max HR is 193) just seems rediculously slow.

When I did the 2400m test I did fine at that 170 & 180 level, I could propbably go 10k at 170 maybe 5k at 180.

serenitynow wrote:

Before reviewing the Hadd plan, I had written down a training plan very similar to what you have stated. Although I only had two "hard" workouts consisting of a tempo and 1 day at the track. My weekend long run would alternate from just easy miles one week, to a progression run the next, and one at MP, then start the cycle all over.

I like the idea of Hadd, but the thought of running at 145 HRM (my max HR is 193) just seems rediculously slow.

When I did the 2400m test I did fine at that 170 & 180 level, I could propbably go 10k at 170 maybe 5k at 180.

I felt the same about how far I could go, and eventually I did 10k at slightly slower than the 180 pace (though I had surely improved but had not run another 2400m test). But with a max at 193, you should be theoretically capable of running a marathon at your 170 pace...right now you say you think you could go 10k.

Can anyone with long term experience with the Hadd program say how long it will take (if ever) for someone who can run 10k at their predicted marathon HR to extend that to the full marathon distance?

I've got a HR max in the 193 neighborhood. After a year of training in this style I was capable of 1/2 marathon at greater than 180, so I think that there is definitely room for improvement. Remember that the big Hadd thread on this site is just the base training phase, but that is an important phase and you could run a solid marathon off of that training alone. If that were what you were after I'd think that 9 months may be plenty of time to get to that point. After that, though, I'd guess that you could get much faster by getting in to various faster speeds while maintaining what you gained in that base phase.

Hadd's basic insight is about the best way of increasing your lactate threshold if you're training for marathons: building from below, slowly and steadily and with the help of heart rate monitors, rather than nailing your LT and then training to hold that HR for increasing periods of time. The former method--setting a "low" LT of, for example, of HR 160--ensures that you are working at a truly (high) aerobic pace. The latter method--which in my own case would ask me to run at my "true" LT HR, 177--demands that at least some of the energy you're running on be provided by lactate via a kind of leakage; it also demands that you burn glycogen at a higher rate than you can possibly sustain for the length of a marathon. Equally importantly is the fact that by running right at threshold, you're training the muscle fibers that work most effectively at that pace. But you're not working on slower-twitch fibers, if you will.

Hadd's system is partly, although not entirely, about encouraging fat burning. It's not as exclusively focused on that as the Maffetone low HR system.

I've worked a loose variation of Hadd's plan this summer, getting ready for a September 3rd marathon. I've done none of his tests he asks for, but I've kept my four short/easy recovery runs very slow, and I've kept his series of increasing LT heart rates--160, 165, 170--in mind as I run my longer runs.

I don't believe that it's possible to follow his plan with any sort of rigorousness in the hot summer months we've had. A ten-degree difference in temperature makes a huge difference both in the pace you're able to sustain at a given HR and how long you're able to sustain it on long runs (2-3 hours) when dehydration becomes a problem. His requirement that you run 10 miles at a "rock steady" HR of 160 before increasing your LT to 165 is impossible to follow--at least in Mississippi between June and September.

Yet his central insight vis a vis marathon training remains: it's absolutely impossible to run a full marathon right at your threshold HR--since that is by definition your one-hour pace--and as you approach that HR (again: 177 (89%) in my case; 198 is my max), you're playing with anaerobic fire. So what is the maximum sustainable HR at the marathon duration--which in my case is 3:20 - 3:30? Is it 160 (81%)? 165 (83%)? 170 (86%)? And how does it feel when you've trained yourself so that such a HR gives you the subjective feeling of tirelessness, at least over an extended stretch in the course, say, of a long run? These are the questions Hadd's approach forces you to ask, and that every marathoner should probably be asking.

KudzuRunner wrote:I don't believe that it's possible to follow his plan with any sort of rigorousness in the hot summer months we've had. A ten-degree difference in temperature makes a huge difference both in the pace you're able to sustain at a given HR and how long you're able to sustain it on long runs (2-3 hours) when dehydration becomes a problem. His requirement that you run 10 miles at a "rock steady" HR of 160 before increasing your LT to 165 is impossible to follow--at least in Mississippi between June and September.

It's definitely true that it's very hard to hold pace at constant HR when working at brisk aerobic efforts in the heat and humidity. Hadd's specific advice in these cases is to use the HR as the guide and not to worry about pace. This can be a little bit demoralizing (I've drifted from 6:20 pace to 7:00+ pace over 10 miles at 85% HRmax in these circumstances in the past), and hard to accept (since it's counterintuitive that it's OK to go slower - this won't harm the fitness you're working to build).

I will say that this effect of elevated HR and faster drift in higher temperature/humidity decreases somewhat as fitness improves (although it never disappears), and if you can talk yourself into letting HR be the guide in these circumstances, you will still get the desired training effect.

I followed the program for 8 months leading up to a 25k. Had my best time in 10 years! I'm 52 : )

Hope your running well!