KudzuRunner wrote:I certainly plan on doing more training at HRs between 171-177--which is of course the space between marathon pace and half marathon pace where several good coaches (particularly JK; also Pfitz) have noted that solid aerobic progress can be made--IF that high-aerobic zone is worked into gently, progressively, without undue strain.
Hadd would probably agree, since his whole plan involves slowly working the LT training HR up--from 160 to 165 to 170, etc.
I'll tell you the part I think Hadd would agree with. The later stages of marathon preparation (his way) involves long sessions (like 2 x 10k) at HRmarathon, or 87-90% HRmax. Once you're well trained aerobically, there's a good chance that those long sessions at up to 90% HRmax will sometimes be something like 10s/mile (or more) quicker than M-pace.
So when you suggest running at between M and HM pace, then yes I think he'd agree, for an aerobically well-trained runner in the late stages of marathon prep.
I don't think he'd suggest you train at HRs higher than 90%, though, for the longer aerobic sessions. Once well prepared, those HRs would probably give you paces closer to HM pace (or quicker), at least for shorter reps (like 2000s, say).
There is a place for that sort of work also, but not guided by HR. Once you start to get out of the zone where your running is almost entirely aerobic, I don't believe you can properly control the workout effort by HR alone, but rather you work by time, and only look at HRs after the fact.
At least that's what I think he'd say, more or less.