Hadd, are you serious?

My PR's are 4:41 1600, 9:20 3k 16:25 5k and I am going 9:00+ pace on my runs. He said that if your Max HR is well over 200 (mine is ~210 I think) you should go 150-155 HR. Also go 160-165+ 2 times a week and at this pace toward the end of your long runs. If you feel it is too easy go longer or at a faster aerobic pace. The pace picks up significantly over time (2+ months).

Hey, there have been days I've been out there at 11:30 pace to keep the HR down. Believe....the pace will pick up. For now, I'm just enjoying running a lot more than usual without feeling beat up all the time, and screw the pace according to the watch.

Hey thanks guys, this does help. I'll be running and old heads are passing me. I might go with the 150-155, at least that might be in the 9 minute flat category. But yes, time per mile should not matter, its just that I've done that for so long and its hard to get away from it.

I dont know why you people are running +9:00 miles at "easy" paces. this sounds ridiculous

at 140 ive been at 6min pace... trying to correlate this to others has made me confused of what others are doing, or if maybe im more of a freak (with a high-ish mileage background)

People keep talking of heart rate, what about blood pressure, i have logs with not only heart rate, weight but my blood pressure. Interesting to note i recently noticed that 1 weeks prior to all my mile pr my blood pressure was dropping every morning while the low heart rate was constant every morning. for my 2mile pr the blood pressure was constant but the heart rate dropped till a very low 32....

Heart rate is understood more i notice but can anyone enlighten me with what the blood pressure means and what it is doing in correlation to running.

I don't care what anyone preaches 9 minute miles and 11 minute miles for even medicore athletes just will not get it done.

I don't care what "studies" say.

You at least have to do something that resembles running.

When you are running 11 minute miles(I assume you are 16ish for 5k) does it feel in your gut like this is doing anything for you as an athlete?

Reader wrote:

I dont know why you people are running +9:00 miles at "easy" paces. this sounds ridiculous

at 140 ive been at 6min pace... trying to correlate this to others has made me confused of what others are doing, or if maybe im more of a freak

the answer is obvious-- you're older and have a much better aerobic background...

You are training as if heart rate is the only variable. With your times, you should be doing easy runs at about 7-7:30 pace. Doing runs at that pace is only what "fits" (according to some coaches) your training level. That is really not any way to improve though. 7-7:30 is really more appropriate. At no point should you EVER be giong over 9 minute pace for a complete run. If you look at the training of EVERY ELITE RUNNER, they keep their training relatively quick. Long runs for Ritz are done at 5:30 pace(18 milers). Most good Marathoners do their long runs under 7:30 pace (usually atleast 25 miles). Running 9 minute pace does nothing for your legs or lungs. And probably does not benefit your heart much more than running at 7 minute pace. You should always be wary of someone who tells you to slow down your training, despite the fact that you were improving when your training was faster.

run_dxc wrote:

old heads are passing me.

I'd been doing easy runs at around 7mm forever. After studying the "Hadd" thread, I bought a HR monitor. One day last week, three guys came running past, maybe 15 yrs older than me, talking about how slow their races were getting. One of them said, "During the blah blah 10K, the guy next to me had his teeth fall out."

XCpotential wrote:

Most good Marathoners do their long runs under 7:30 pace (usually atleast 25 miles).

For someone who runs a marathon at 5:00/5:30 pace (2:11/2:24 marathon), a 7:30 pace it's a VERY EASY PACE!!!!

Just do your long runs at an easy effort (60-70% of your Heart Rate Reserve) and the pace will take care of itself. You'll be less tired, run longer, and teach your muscles to burn fat more efficiently.

FS

Fifteen years ago I was a 2:50 marathon, 35 minute 10k guy. My training was typical of those at that level, I think. In marathon training I ran about 70-80 miles/wk at about 6:40 pace, and congratulated myself for taking it slow on my runs. I was continually frustrated, though, by my inability to run sets of mile repeats much faster than 5:45 per. The year that HRM first became widely available, was also the year that I happened upon a copy of vanAaken's book. His training philosophy is substantially similar to that of Hadd's. Anyway, I bought a HRM and started to do more mileage at a HR of 120-140. A lot of my miles were in the 9-10 min range. Something odd happened, though. AFter a few months of this super slow training, my mile repeats were down around 5:10 without additional effort. Within a year of this change in my training I ran a marathon in 2:27 and a 10k in 32 flat. At the time I was living in Eugene and was lucky enough to win a local 10k for which there was prize money. My name got in the paper and a lot of 40 min 10kers congratulated me, sounding something like this: "Wow, I had no idea you were so fast. I don't understand it. It seems every day I'm blowing by you on the trail. How do you do it." To which I would respond: "You know how I did it? Every day I let you blow by me on the trail."

How slow is too slow? This doesn't sound like what Lydiard calls "comfortably hard" aerobic running, it sounds like the running he said you'd need to do for five hours to get any benefit.

The guy who Hadd told to run between 140 and 150 bpm had a max heart rate of 193. That was between 72% and 78% of his max.

If your max is over 200 you would naturally run in a higher range. Just calculate these percentages of your own max and run at that. If your max was exactly 200 they would give you a range of 144 and 156 bpm

Good story, Salah. As someone new to this slow down to get faster thing, I find it hard to let the people I used to blow by pull away from me on easy runs. I'll try thinking: "I'm going to beat you in a race because I let you beat me on easy runs."

SAlah- That is quite an amazing improvement. What kind of mileage were you doing before/during your slowing down phase, and what, if any faster training and/or supplemental racing were you doing in addition to the easy miles?

For a 35 minute 10k runner, and 70-80 miles volume, 6:40 is hammering. Perhaps 7:10-20 would have been fine also.

Did you always time yourself to 9minutes or just assume you were running that slow?

Great example Salah. I'm sure these boards are filled with "workout kings" who boast of high weekly mileage totals, great workouts they have run, and how training with a HR monitor is for wimps as they hammer distance runs day in and day out, only to race mediocre times compared to the work they've done. We probably all know peple who train at 6:45 pace and then race at 6:30 pace; not a desireable goal. You posted a good example of training smarter to race faster.

Dudes, go to mensracing and check out the interview with Adrian Blincoe.

Another good example. Coach O'Sullivan is involved with the NIKE XC Summer Camps as well, which preach effort-based training for high school kids to adults. There are always a lot of doubters, but they are usually the ones who end up underachieving in the long run.

If I recall correctly Craig Virgin was big, at least in HS, on going comparatively easy in practice while saving big efforts for races.