2 kinds of runners. Which are you?

Before I reply to your question about this hypothetical young punk that comes to the track asking me for advice, let first give a brief revision of my basic training concepts. Let me explain my own way of tackling things, and how I see all the details involved in a training plan.

When it comes to middle and long-distance training, my guide is traditional training methodology rather than training physiology. My knowledge of the history of past and present methods, as well as my many years of personal experience have taught me that these are the key to formulating a training plan. I break the training down into the most basic of training parameters; time and space.

Space (distance): the exterior objective materialistic reality
Time (duration): the inner/abstract/subjective reality

The combination of time and space, i.e. the time it takes you to cover a certain distance (or vice-versa - the space you cover in a certain time), that's the pace (intensity).

Adhering to simplicity, I divide all middle and long distance training into three main categories:
1. Aerobic runs: covering everything from recovery runs to more dynamic paces.
2. Moderate/medium/submaximal runs. The effort that has become known as modern LT training. Whatever the terminology used, these are all intense, but submaximal paces. There has been great debate (perhaps too much) on these paces in recent years.
3. Fast/Maximal Training Runs: Includes all paces from close to maximal all the way up to supra-maximal but always respective to the target event distance. Intermittent training is commonly used at these running intensities.

Let me kick off with a question for John Hadd

Does your training also include other workouts and fast-paced training or do you simply train all runners as you advised Joe on the monster thread ?

That such a question is asked so often surprises me, Antonio. Don’t get me wrong, you are by no means the first person to ask, because from reading posts on this and other message boards over the years since my old Letsrun threads, I have seen the belief expressed many times that Hadd training is, “slow training”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Hadd training is extremely intense, so intense that I found that almost all runners who came to begin training with me could not handle the intensity straight outta the box. So, to get them to a stage where they could handle it, years ago I had to go back and invent what we now refer to as Phase I. In a sentence, Phase I gets the runner “ready to train”.

We need to get the runner into a condition where he/she can handle work sessions like the following:
6 x 800m at 104% of 5k pace with everything from equal time recovery (down to) 1:15-1:30 recovery.
5-6 x 1k at 5k pace with 200m jog recovery in 90 secs
3 x 3k at 95-96% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery
2 x 5k at 93-94% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery
8k at 92% of 5k pace
16-20k at 88-90% of 5k pace

And we found that without a solid Phase I (outlined in the thread you refer to) they could not manage them. Of course nobody starts at these paces or these rep durations. They work up to them over weeks, months and years. So there are progressions to get every runner to handle longer and longer reps at the paces outlined and assuming you have completed a solid Phase I, you can rapidly benefit from more intense training.

Talking about pace, note that I refer all these efforts back to the runner’s 5k pace. I do this because if I say (eg:) go and run 2 x 5k at Half Marathon pace, then that means different things to different people, and it is most often the case that their HM PR is slower than I would expect it to be, so the pace they would train at is slower than the pace I want them to achieve.

I don’t want people to run 2 x 5k at HM pace, but 2 x 5k at 93-94% of 5k pace (which is usually quicker, until they become well-trained, and then once they do, “HM pace” and “93-94% of 5k pace” become basically the same pace).

So, the short answer to your question is; No, I do not just train runners as outlined in the monster thread. That is just Phase I - training to be able to train.

There is a lot more to Hadd Training than was contained in those old threads. Although I would have to re-read it to check, the thread was begun purely in response to a request/question from another LR reader. At the time, I had been posting some training advice here and these on earlier threads and the direct question came up; Hadd, How do we get to there (being able to run the sessions I was advising) from where we are?

Phase I is just that; a way to get from where you are today, to where you can handle something along the lines of those sessions outlined above. I was happy just to post up Phase I, because I knew that if runners got through it they would be able to benefit from faster training in ways they could not have benefited before Phase I.

At the time I did not think there was much need for me to post up training advice at faster paces, because (as you know) everybody posts up such training advice. I’ve been known to refer to this as “sexy training”, and naturally every runner is keen to get there as quickly as possible, (despite the fact it is often not in their best interest to do so).

Magazines, websites and forums are full of (often unsubstantiated) anecdotal training of elites; Mr So-and-so ran 14x1k with 8.5 seconds recovery! You know the drill…

The knee-jerk implication of such articles is that to perform in races as Mr So-and-so does, you need to go and do (attempt) such training sessions.

Never having mastered the art of the knee-jerk, my reaction is in another direction; I am not so interested in what Mr So-and-so is doing today, I am much more interested in knowing what earlier training he did to get in such a condition that he can today handle such a session. In other words (and getting back to what I wrote above); how do you get there from here?

So, Phase I and the other Phases are the best way I know to do just that.


Tell me more about the Cabral Approach...

I'm flying Stateside in a few moments, as a guest of the Texas Independence Relay (my thanks to Jay & Joy for inviting me). If you are in the neighbourhood on 1-2 March, feel free to drop by their race HQ and say hi; maybe talk some running.

-------------
www.texasindependencerelay.com

Summary of my interpretation of “intermittent” training

Before continuing, let me explain what intermittent training means to me; it is my own interpretation, and explains what I see as the difference in methodology behind each form of intermittent training.
It has become apparent to me from what I have read over the years that I differ from many “experts” when discussing intermittent training. I feel therefore I need to explain some basic definitions so that when I go on to discuss any particular form of intermittent training it will be obvious what I am referring to.

Definition of intermittent training
Intermittent training is a generic “umbrella” concept that covers any type of training that does not have a steady or continuous pace as its main design. It is used in describing fast/intense periods of time/distance interspersed with other periods of time/distance made up of inactivity/complete rest or runs of a slower intensity/active rest.
Such training is sometimes referred to as, “In-Out”. At this point it does not really matter the type of running surface, the training format, the total distance, the number of sets and so on.

Let me make one initial distinction between types of intermittent training.
On the one hand we have predetermined intermittent training in which one, some or all of the elements are fixed: could be the pace, or the number of sets, the total distance, and so on.
Interval training (and please read later what I mean by that term, because it is not what many others mean when they use the term) is a perfect example of a predetermined workout.

On the other hand there is “spontaneous”, not-predetermined intermittent training. This might be considered more “chaotic” (in the sense of Chaos Theory, rather than simply meaning disorganised).
Fartlek in the “natural style” might be a perfect example. But a natural fartlek, where no set pace is determined, no number of sets, nor distances run, nor set duration of distance/time run before changing from one pace to the other. Basically you run “by feeling”, rather than to any calculated design template.

Fractional/Repetition training
Actually the word fractional and the word repetitions or fractional/repetition workout it means different things to different coaches and runners. For me fractional it simply means the notion of “division” or of “fraction” and repetition it simply means “to repeat”.
Fractional training it comes from one primary concept of intermittent training is that it is a workout formed by cutting or dividing a race distance into a number of smaller parts (e.g.: 5-10 x 1,000m for a target 10k event). Each set distance is then run while you try to maintain a running velocity close to the race pace. The aim is to “repeat” the same distance over and over again at near race pace with a suitable recovery interval in between.
Organising the workout this way has proven to be an effective method of allowing running at race pace.
Early on, before the introduction of the interval training concept, the recovery was simply a pause long enough to allow a number of repetitions to be run at the same (near race) pace.
Therefore, when we discuss repetition workouts, the prime focus should be on the running pace, the recovery interval is of secondary importance. The recovery interval is solely to allow the runner to have a near-complete recovery between repetitions. To allow the runner to manage to run (a number of times) at close to race pace, the number of reps is always determined by dividing the target event.
Naturally, longer distance reps are utilised when the target is a long distance event; (e.g.: 6-10 x 1000m or 3-5 x 2000m for a target 10k race). While in middle distance events the repetitions tend to be shorter (e.g.: 7-10 x 500m or 4-5 x 1000m for 5k run and 4 x 400m or 2 x 800m for the Mile).
With the development of the repetition method, and the development of intermittent concepts in various formats and for different purposes such as those based on physiological concepts, or experience, or trial-and-error, the original concept behind repetition training has been changed.
Actually the repetition workout concept is more flexible. There is no longer a need to cover the total event distance in reps; longer reps can be done by time rather than distance, and repetition training has become merged into a generic “interval” training commonly used by long distance runners. But in my opinion the major change in the repetition workouts is that is used a pace that is different or faster than the race pace, it is more a “best” pace for the total repetition units. E.g.: a 3:45 1500m runner instead of do 5 x 500m 1:15 race pace does 5X500m quite all flat out faster than 1:15 race pace and delay the rest periods to allow a complete recovery.

Interval training is a distinct type of intermittent training

Interval training is another category of intermittent training; a major one. The name "interval training" does not derive just from the fact that the workout permits recovery "intervals" between the periods of fast running.
The name comes from the fact that original designers, Gerschler and Reindell, used an interval of time that allowed only incomplete recovery.
They believed that an accurate and incomplete recovery interval stresses the runner more and more with each additional running period. Each running effort becomes more and more difficult as the workout continues.

They discovered that when training with an incomplete recovery interval, then the recovery became just as important as the running interval itself, if not more important! Here lies the essence of interval training.
The interval training method allows for short and equal recovery periods, but always aiming for incomplete recovery, and preferring an active recovery so as to ensure that complete recovery cannot occur.
Here we can see that interval training differs from repetition training in the format of recovery. Interval training mandates incomplete recovery, while repetition training does not. Interval training requires precise, accurate recovery interval periods, while repetition training does not.

Another interesting component from the early days of interval training as expounded by Gerschler and Reindell was that the average pace of the running interval was originally estimated from given percentages of the athlete's best effort for the interval distance. e.g.: If your workout is formed of 400m intervals, then the pace is based on some percentage of your 400m PB.

Repetition versus Interval Training
Many runners and coaches from any number of sports use the terms repetition and interval training indiscriminately and interchangeably, and usually with a different interpretation than the original one.
The question here is not whether the name of the training methodology is important, or whether the standard model should be changed, but our goal must always be to understand the exact goal behind the training.
Different training methods will stimulate the runner in different ways, and it is normal for training methods to evolve or be adjusted to different needs and contexts, such as tweaking for individualisation and personalisation purposes to suit the needs of each individual.
But if the training no longer provokes the adaptations conceived by the original concept, then it is no longer the same training, irrespective of the name used. It may appear to be related by name, but it is no longer the same training.

Interval training is different and distinct from repetition training. In repetition training, the pace is estimated from the target event. In interval training the pace is a percent of your PB for the interval distance (i.e. a percent of your 400m PB when running intervals of 8x400 indistinctly what is your goal distance event).
This original distinction between the two main intermittent training - interval and repetition methods - goes back to the two separate original concepts on which they are based.
In repetition training, the pace of each rep is calculated from the pace of the target event with a near-complete recovery (e.g. a 15:00/5k runner runs reps of 3:00 per km if done at 100% race pace, or 3:09 if done at 95% race pace, recovery is near-complete).
In interval training, the pace is calculated from a percent of the athlete's PB for the interval distance (e.g. a runner with a 400m PB of 55 secs would run 8-12x400 in 66 secs if running reps at 80% effort - multiply 55 x 1.2 = 66).

Interval Training Decoded

Rest duration between sets; the special case of the incomplete recovery effect.

1/Intermittent training with complete recovery (eg: fractional training or repetition training). Since recovery is complete between reps, the impact of each single rep is as if that rep was done on its own. If we have 3 sets (s1, s2, s3), then the cumulative effect of these sets as a single workout will be linear due to the complete recovery. The total impact of the workout will be (s1+s2+s3). Of course this theory is not as simple as it sounds. Despite taking every effort to make each recovery complete, there has to be an impact on the next repetition due to the effect of the previous rep. Otherwise the length of the recovery interval would have to be exceptional and the length of the whole session could take an infinite amount of time. Too, if recovery was genuinely complete, then the runner could run an infinite amount of reps without tiring, and we all know that is not what happens. The special case of repetition training done “flat-out” for a number of units, requires a long recovery, but we know it is not possible to have a genuinely “complete” recovery.

2/Intermittent training with incomplete recovery (eg: interval training). Due to the impact of the preceding rep(s) and the incomplete recovery, the impact of each succeeding rep is higher than in a straight linear formation. The effort of each set will be compound due to the aggregated effect of the previous ones. If we have 3 sets (s1, s2, s3), then the total effect will be higher than a simple linear addition of s1+s2+s3. Due to the incomplete recovery, the impact is not linear but logarithmic.

The impact of each successive set will include the additional burden of that set having been completed subsequent to an earlier set (or sets). So the impact of s2 will include a “percentage” carry-over burden from s1. The rep s2 is no longer simply a repeat of s1. In other words, s1+s2 is really s1+(s2+percent of s1). Since s3 is also not done in isolation, but is performed after s1+s2, then the effect on the runner of s3 is not as it would be if s3 were performed as a standalone, but in the form of the cumulative effect when s3 is performed after the preceding sets. In such a situation, s3 really means (s3+percent of s1+percent of s2).

The main goal of interval training theory is the use of an incomplete recovery so that each set places a higher and higher cumulative onus/stimulus on the runner. This cannot be achieved in a system that uses complete recovery.

In intermittent training with complete recovery (as in fractional or repetition workouts), the only requirement is that the recovery is long enough to allow the next rep to be run at the required intensity (ie: race pace, or vVO2 pace, or whatever).

In direct contrast, in intermittent training with incomplete recovery (eg: interval training), there is the compounding effect of multiple sets that will place greater onus/stimulus on the runner than a linear aggregation.

Each set will increase the effect/stress of the subsequent one precisely due to incomplete recovery.

The decision to determine what precisely is an incomplete recovery duration is taken from the workout design and must;

a/ be short enough to promote an incomplete recovery from the first set to the last
b/ be long enough that the runner doesn’t get into a state of deep exhaustion yet still is able to complete the session without reaching a state where he is not able to hold the target average pace, or needs to reduce the number of sets or even cut the session short entirely.

This is not to imply that the average workout pace cannot be accurate or pre-determined, it is not the prime interest. The pace is of interest only in that it contributes to the level of stimulus intensity.

Irrespective of the enormous variations in design that an intermittent session can have (number of reps, rep distance, pace intensity, etc), the most vital element in interval training is that the recovery interval must be incomplete; whether short, passive/standstill or active/run or jog.

In contrast, in intermittent training of the fractional/repetition type, including that of the modern vVO2max workout, the interval recovery may be active or passive, but needs to be long enough to permit the main goal of this workout; the pursuit of the defined target pace. This is usually related to the target pace for the target distance, or in more recent times, aimed at improving the physiological parameter, vVO2max.

In interval training (with incomplete recovery), a crucial element is that as each succeeding rep is run, it includes some percentage (or fraction) of the effort stimulus of the previous one(s) so that the effort, the strain on the runner, becomes accumulative.

Due to the accumulative effect, brought about purely by incomplete recovery, at some point during the session the athlete reaches an effort state that is more than the sum of the reps he/she has completed. The accumulated burden of the previous reps means the effort of each successive rep is more than that due to the distance run, or the pace achieved; the effort is greater than that normally required for the pace used in the workout.

For example; when a runner runs 10x500m interval training (with incomplete recovery), by the end of the workout the runner should have covered 5km in an average pace faster than current 5k PB. Despite incomplete recovery, the runner should manage a faster-than-5k PB pace average for the session. Along with the stresses of the higher intensity (greater than 5k race pace), a session done in this way may benefit other physiological areas like aerobic power in a way that could not be achieved if the session had been run as a continuous 5k, or run as an intermittent session with near-complete recovery breaks.

You know what, Antonio, we don’t need to just talk about running in this thread; we don’t do that when we email back and forth, so why change things? Anyhow, here’s a coupla money-makin’ deals I just learned in the last few days.

Before flyin’ to Texas, we had to overnight in Germany and caught a Hotel Courtesy Bus from the airport out to the hotel in the woods somewhere.

I figured I’d log on and catch up on some emails. To log on from the Hotel Reception was €1 (1 euro) for 2 minutes. What is that, nearly a buck a minute? Whoa!

Anyway, I log onto Yahoo and at that cost I’m typin’ up a storm replyin’ to a buddy from Down Under. I’m openin’ up with my salutary response du jour (“Yo bro, how’s it hangin’?...) when I glance up at the screen and I see what I’ve written; “Zo bro,” and I think, Holy Marolli, I’m only here 30 minutes an’ I’m typin’ with a German accent already!

I look down at the keyboard an’ I realize they don’t have a QWERTY keyboard. They have a QWERTZ keyboard! They done swapped the letters “Y” and “Z” on the keyboard! What is that all about?

I woulda asked at Reception, but there was a countdown timer thingy in the top right corner of the screen, an’ it was goin’ like a Seiko on steroids, so I kept the head down, huntin’ an’ peckin’ on the keyboard wondering what other letters they mighta changed. I just managed to hit Send as the clocked ticked 2 mins and I got chucked offline.

I’m sittin’ there thinkin’; over $1.50 for 2 mins… if I had me and internet café with a coupla dozen of these machines crankin’ for 8 hours a day (I did the math), I could make me some serious mazooma!

But that ain’t all. Next mornin’ I’m checkin’ out of the Hotel and the Receptionist is tottin’ up the bill; “Room… Breakfast… Courtesy Bus…”

I said, “Whoa right there, Sweetie! The Courtesy Bus is free, no?”
She gives me one of those smiles that says I’ve been punk’d and explains, “Ze Courtesy Bus from the Airport to the Hotel is free. Ze Courtesy Bus from the Hotel back the Airport, you need to pay!”

I was stunned but I just had to let out a low appreciative whistle.

I had a look out the main door and we’re in the middle of some forest deal like outta some Grimm’s Fairy Tale, an’ I swear I heard some wolves or somethin’ in the middle of the night. I know I got a flight in a little over an hour… but part of me just really had to appreciate what a crafty sweet deal they had goin’!

Right there I’m thinkin’, that’s why Ma Hadd’s little boy ain’t no millionaire! First with the internet, now with the courtesy bus… here’s how a guy makes serious coin!

I admit I am far too simple for such deals ever to occur to me. The day I was born I musta skipped my dose of devious.

So, I did what any normal red-blooded male woulda done in the circumstances; I reached for some plastic!

Something like 12 hours later I landed in the “Land of the Free…” and I hafta tell you, my first thought was, I wonder if that includes the Courtesy Bus back to the airport?

Hang tough, Antonio! I’m gonna catch up on some sleep and then I’ll read what you’ve written so far.

I’m keen to see what you would say when you meet that young punk for the first time, Antonio. What you would get him to do on day one.

I often get an HRM on them and tell them to warm up with the others in the group for 6 laps or so and just call out the HR every lap as they pass by where I’m standing trackside.

That first day, on the warm-up, I wouldn’t tell a newbie to keep to any HR range. I just tell ‘em to jog at easy pace along with the others.

Sometimes (for fun), I’ll tell some of the others who’ve been with me for a while to call out their HRs too. So I might hear numbers like this as the group jogs by; 133... 135... 126... and then a kinda shocked tone of voice calling out, "... 173 !?!"

I know without even looking who that high HR belongs to.

I say, shocked, because it might be the first time in his life that runner has ever worn an HRM. I always tell newcomers not to get worried when they realize how high their HR is compared to the others. In fact, I tell them that if their HR is high on day one, they should look on it as a good thing, because it means there is a ton of improvement they can make once we get some Phase I into them.

If they require a HR of 173 just to jog dead easy on day one – I tell them – just think how good they are going to be when I train them to be able to jog at the same pace needing a HR of only 140.

Think about it like this; if a HR of 173 is 7:30 m/m, then a HR of 200 (and that’ll generally be a young kid at race pace) cannot be a whole lot faster.

So, I explain to him/her that if I can make 7:30 pace require a HR of "only" 140 (instead of 173), and he/she can STILL go out and race at 200 bpm, think of the difference between 140 and 200 compared to the difference between 173 and 200.

And think how much faster the running pace at 200 bpm is gonna be when his heart is just tickin’ over at 7:30 m/m.

So today, 173 HR might be 7:30 mins/mile. In time, I might make that self-same HR into 6:00 m/m or better... which will mean, with a knock-on effect, that the race pace at 200 bpm also got a whole lot faster!

Like I said, I'm interested to see what you'd say to this kid on day one, Antonio, but take your time. There's no rush. It makes good sense to define the terminology at the outset. Especially since you're translating from a Portuguese language system of training into a more Western-English version. Good idea to make sure we're all singing the same song.

You will need to wait a bit longer for my answer to your question about the young punk who wants some training. First I want to continue explaining some of my basic training concepts.

In the past there has been too much misunderstanding about the different use of training terminology; I want to be sure you understand what I mean when I use some technical expressions.

Training. Time and Space Matters

I see every training program as an organised schedule of different stimulae, the main goal of which is to get the runner into optimal shape for the target event.

Each individual stimulus is made up of a precise management of time and space – the running pace. Each training stimulus can be considered from that viewpoint.

1/ Specific training; directly linked to the target event.
2/ General training; not directly linked to the target event, but important nonetheless.

Some more basic concepts can be linked to the target race pace. To create a specific stimulus linked to target race pace, there are 3 fundamental paces;

1/ To run faster than race pace for a shorter period/ distance than race distance.
2/ To run at race pace.
3/ To run slower than race pace, for a longer period/ distance than race distance.

Three other “artificial” concepts can also be abstracted from the target event;

1/ Speed: To run a short distance in a maximal effort, quite close to individual maximum effort.
2/ Resistance: To run at an intensity very close to that of race pace, or at a pace very close to race pace.
3/ Endurance or Persistence: To run longer than race distance at a pace that is clearly slower and less intense than race pace.

Two other ideas are also connected to the time and space concept;

1/ Intensive: It means to run faster, and consequently the need to train over short distances or in short time durations and come close to your fastest paces.
2/ Extensive: It means to run longer than race duration / distance, which means running slower than race pace so as to last the whole distance or duration of the session.

Among all these “artificial concepts of discrimination” there is a specific training pace we also need to define that is called “strength endurance”. This is a pace with an intensity that is in direct connection and similar to the target event. It is a compromise of speed, resistance and endurance (each already defined above) in an intensity that is very close to race pace.

All this is basic stuff, but it can be made complex when someone discovers the “wheel” of training; intermittent running.

Therefore "Time and Space Matters" – the way I view training methodology – that’s basically a way to manage all training stimulae in agreement with a specific target event. If you want to reduce it to the minimal, or the essence of training, it can be seen as the proper management of “pace intensities” for the target event.

All running training – like most physical activities – benefits from synthesising all previous training experience and all previous training methods into a training methodology that works for you. Each successful training method has its own collective foundation based on universal logic, i.e. science, or any other method of knowledge acquisition, such as past experience or trial and error.

Hi John, the question I asked earlier about your training is not only mine, it is one I have read often on this and other boards. I guess we all realise that Joe’s Phase I was nothing but your own way of getting a runner “ready to train”.

But reading your answer to that question I can see that in later Phases you use what I term, “intermittent runs” or “intermittent workouts” in the examples you give of the specific training you use.

Let me paste them again here:

6 x 800m at 104% of 5k pace with everything from equal time recovery (down to) 1:15-1:30 recovery.
5-6 x 1k at 5k pace with 200m jog recovery in 90 secs
3 x 3k at 95-96% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery
2 x 5k at 93-94% of 5k pace with 800m jog recovery
8k at 92% of 5k pace
16-20k at 88-90% of 5k pace

I can see that this time the workouts you recommend are related to race pace; 5km race pace in the examples above. This time I don’t see any HR recommendations like you had given in Joe’s thread.

It seems that when you prescribe faster intensity training you use time and distance as the method of defining the intermittent workouts; this is unlike your Phase I thread in which – apart from the 2400m tests – you used the HRM to determine/set the pace of training sessions.

My first question therefore is; do you believe that for fast intermittent workouts – which is what the above sessions really are – it is better to work off of a set pace rather than a set HR?

I also note that you prefer to use 5k PR pace or a percentage of 5k PR pace to set the workouts, rather than to estimate HM pace. I find that curious, coming from a coach like yourself who has a background in sports science.

My second question is; can I assume that you – like me – prefer time and pace intensity or percentages thereof when you set a training target for really intense workouts, rather than some intensity based on physiology?

Good questions here, Antonio. Lemme cut them into little pieces and take them one by one...

---

Antonio Cabral wrote:
I can see that in later Phases you use what I term, “intermittent runs” or “intermittent workouts” ...

---

Got some time, lemme try and answer another portion of your last post:

---

Antonio Cabral wrote:
I can see that this time the workouts you recommend are related to 5km race pace... I don’t see any HR recommendations like you had given in Joe’s thread.

---

---

Hadd wrote:
So everybody sees things from their own perspective, three different Doctors all with their own particular viewpoint. Coaches are the same.

So Cabral, let's imagine some young punk comes boppin' up to you one day at the track, "Yo Yo, Mr C. I wants to train, what you got for me?"

I don't see you slapping a Heart Rate Monitor (HRM) on him, like I probably would, so is there such a thing as the Cabral Approach?

---

Very busy right now... but don't worry about this thread. Both Antonio and I have lots more we want to say.

In the meantime, here are a couple of links to my posts from the 2003 Hadd Approach thread. A number of runners have emailed me in the past few days saying they cannot find a link to this document...

I don't have a copy myself, so all I did was google "Hadd Approach" or "Hadd Lactate Threshold" and found these.

http://www.counterpartcoaching.com/hadd.pdf

http://www.electricblues.com/Hadd.doc

When someone comes up to me asks me to coach them, my first question (perhaps obviously) is to ask him/her about their running background and to show me some examples of their recent training. At the same time, I like to inquire about their motivation and medium and long-term targets.
I analyse what I am told, and then consider what I think I can do, how best I can train the person before to me to maximise his/her potential.
This is a major challenge for me: to achieve the best possible improvement and optimal progress for each runner.
In the case of our young punk, the first thing I need to teach him is my three basic pace levels:
1 - easy runs
2 - moderate to intense (but still submaximal) LT runs
3 - maximal runs
I will start him for some time with just easy runs (according to my definition). As you discuss above, he needs to be made "ready to train". Then when I see that the time has come, I will introduce into his regular training some intense but submaximal runs - these provoke a high aerobic demand.
Later, when I estimate that he is ready to compete, I will include some 3rd level training intensity - fast runs, with a higher aerobic demand at maximal pace. As you would expect, most of the fast runs will be done in the form of intermittent workouts.
In my next post I will add more comments about basic easy runs - pure aerobic runs - and how I would prescribe them for everyone from a young punk to a top-class runner.

I have no desire for this to become a thread on HRMs. There's a lot more I want to discuss. But let me write to counter some stuff I’ve read over the years against HRMs. These can be everything from “Kenyans don’t wear HRMs” to “I have a high-low-whatever HRmax and the training zones don’t work with me...”

In the nicest possible way, whenever I hear someone say, "I'm definitely an exception", I think to myself, well that's probably unlikely... What is more likely is that what we have here is a lack of complete understanding of what's going on.

It's like people who claim, "heart rate monitors don't work for me..." What we really have there is someone who does not like, or understand, the info that the HRM is telling him / her. Usually it is the case that when they are running at what they think is their "correct" training pace (perhaps gleamed from Jack Daniels' Vdot tables based on their recent 5k race pace) they suddenly find the HR is wayyy too high for that pace. So they just (choose to) believe they must be some kind of genetic outlier (because the Vdot tables are always right, everyone sez so), and the HRM goes in the drawer for good.

I guess I could pick up a pencil and manage a coupla stick figures like matchstick men. But with the same pencil in the hands of Leonardo we get the study sketches he used for the Last Supper. So, what's REALLY at fault here when I cannot get the self-same pencil to do what Leonardo can get it to do: is it me or is it the pencil?

An HRM, just like a pencil, is a tool. And a tool is only as good as the person using it. I don’t know why they sell these things without telling you everything you can learn from them. They give you HR training zones based on age-percentages (which are not accurate) and tell you very little else. Let me try and pass on at least some of what an HRM can tell me...

I often liken an HRM to a Rev Counter in a car. Of course every car has a speedometer so we can tell how fast the vehicle is traveling, but few cars (perhaps only the more sporty) will have a rev counter which informs the driver how hard the engine is having to work (to manage the speed of travel). Note that race drivers (Formula I) most definitely have a Rev Counter in their car: im other words, knowing the speed does not tell them all they need to know.

I have a rev counter on the bike: when I am in top gear I might be travelling at 100 km/hr at 6,000 rpm. If I change DOWN a gear, the rpm goes UP... despite the fact I am still doing 100 km/hr. So pace (alone) does not tell you how hard your "engine" is working.

I can imagine observing two runners side by side doing a run, or workout, together. The fact that they are side by side lets me know how fast they are running, but it does NOT tell me how hard each of them is working to achieve that pace.

If I am far enough away, then I might be excused for not realizing that one is working just-a-little-bit harder than the other during the workout. Of course, with years of experience, I can easily pick up any number of other clues; breathing rate, degree of “comfort” or smoothness of movement; who is recruiting more muscle mass to deal with the pace (eg: stride length)... but if the two are close enough in ability, it can be difficult to tell precisely who is working harder than whom.

An HRM on each of them would tell me straight away, especially up to HM pace (or a shade faster) as I discuss above... the rising HR on one of them would warn me that he/she is working harder than I want them to. Even if they were doing one of Cabral’s intermittent sessions, an HRM would be able to show me (inter alia) speed of recovery (how quickly HR falls post-interval), or how high HR climbs on each successive interval.

Therefore although the workout might be governed by a set pace, I can still monitor HR above LT to make sure the training provoked the right effort. If the runner is wearing an HRM, I can check that the pace I gave them is not too hard that night (perhaps due to tiredness brought over from previous sessions).

I mentioned above that I might curtail a session if I thought the runner was working harder than I wanted. Some readers might take that to mean that I am waiting to learn if the HR is higher than I would expect at that running pace.

Actually the opposite is much more likely to be true; I stop the session because the HR is much lower than I expect it to be for the pace involved.

This seems paradoxical. And it often appears that way to runners until I explain to them precisely what the HRM is telling them.

Let’s say I expect an HR for this session in the range of 180-185. I expect it because I know the pace involved, I know what percent HRmax such a pace should require, and I may even have done the same session with this runner in the past, so I know precisely what to expect. I’m not expecting any surprises.

So if the runner is coming round each lap (on pace) and calling out 176... 177... then I watch very closely.

Okay, the first few times this happens to runners the coach might be excused for thinking that the runner has suddenly got much fitter. A drop in HR at the same pace is generally taken as a sign that the runner is “working less”, ie: fitter than previously.

Of course that COULD be the case here, but if I also see that the runner is having to work hard to maintain pace, I stop the session. From experience we have learned that when such a situation occurs, (the HR “will not come up”) then it is because the runner has not fully refueled muscle glycogen from a previous training session, or (in some other way) has not fully recovered from previous training.

I often bag the session and send the runner home with instructions to eat more carbos – maybe also just jog easy for a day or two to help refueling/recovery. When we reschedule the same session for 2-3 days later, we often find the HR is higher, but is in the expected HR zone PLUS the runner finds the pace easier to handle.

So, there you are: a low HR is not always a good thing and a higher HR is not always a bad thing.

A lower-than-expected HR is much more likely to be a sign that the runner is under-fuelled, or not fully recovered from previous training. Much the same as a lower-than-usual lactate value at a running pace is not always a sign of increased fitness; it might simply be a sign that the runner is low on muscle glycogen. In both cases (HR and lactate) the runner will often corroborate this by admitting the pace is “harder than usual” on that occasion.

A higher-than-expected HR on a given night is NOT a sign of lack of recovery from previous training. But it can mean the runner is coming down with a cold/infection. It could also mean that he/she did not sleep well enough the previous night. If the runner is otherwise okay, the session might be completed that night, but watch their health for the next few days and get them to make an extra effort to get more sleep.

So, although many coaches will say running pace is king when it comes to designing workout paces, pace alone will not tell you how hard each runner is working on any given day. And ultimately that's more important (to know) than pace.

How would I calculate the easy pace for our young punk?

I should not have to remind you (since we are the same age) than when we started training there were no such things as HRMs. Today, there are tons of gadgets for checking run effort and exercise intensity, including running pace. Everything from cheap stopwatches to good HRMs, all the way up to GPS devices!

In the old days, we had to learn to control pace intensity by a different process. One way for those with track access or access to a measured route was simply to run the same route daily and simply record the time each time. Knowing the distance and the time you could then calculate the average pace.

One way I used to estimate HR during an easy run was to stop every so often and take the HR (either at the heart or the carotid vein). Record it for 10 secs and multiply by six to get BPM (beats per minute). The rule-of-thumb then was the correct target HR zone for easy aerobic runs was 120-140 bpm, perhaps up to a max of 150 for young runners, or beginners, or someone who is out of shape.

Of course this method is not as accurate as wearing an HRM, but in their absence it was effective. The lack of HRMs did not stop those that wanted to train this way, and we used to use this method quite a lot before HRMs became inexpensive and in common use.

An HRM is a good resource from which we can get tremendous benefit to allow us to understand about different training zone paces, as well as analyse the cardiovascular model of training and control everything from easy pace to intense (but submaximal) paces; what some call LT, or Tempo training.

The cardiovascular model is good for a number of training situations; as with beginners or inexperienced runners. Also in the case(s) of those who train far away from their coach and cannot be observed by him, or are self-coached, or those who are not able to estimate training effort some other way.

But in my opinion, the runner that uses an HRM regularly should be using it to learn how to run “by feel” in the correct training zone. Every competition, and every attempt at improving performance, indeed every training stimulus needs to be guided by correct pace management whatever the workout distance or intensity. As the runner gets more and more experienced, they should also acquire the ability to know “by feel” that they are training/racing at the optimal effort. They should not have to rely on a device.

With a 1,000m test run, I would be able to tell with some accuracy the optimal pace at which our young punk should do his easy training sessions. However, it may be the case that he may not always have access to an accurately measured route to be sure he is training at the right intensity.

I believe that it is also true not to be governed too much by a HR prescription on any given day. Only the runner knows the optimal training pace on any given day. Why keep up to a specific HR zone if you know you feel tired? Why run slowly (just to keep to a HR zone) when you know you could run faster that day with no negative consequences?

What I want to emphasise is that although it can be interesting for our young punk or anyone else to use an HRM, they should also be learning how to run by feel because ultimately only he will know the best pace to do his easy runs, and he needs to learn how to know this “by feel” / intimately.

So, questions like: what pace, what intensity, how many miles, should the young punk run in his daily easy runs, I shall discuss in later posts. Before leaving I would just like to point out the need to individualise many aspects of everyone’s training.

Due to my own interest in the subject, coupled to voluminous reading online, I often come across studies and articles aiming to correlate HR with detection of LT. Here are some I read recently;

----

Int J Sports Med 2007; 28: 463-469
Estimation of the Lactate Threshold from Heart Rate Response to Submaximal Exercise: The Pulse Deficit
B. T. Roseguini, F. Narro, Á. R. Oliveira, J. P. Ribeiro

This study evaluates using something termed the Pulse Deficit (PD) to estimate the first lactate threshold (LT1). Subjects perform several 8-min bouts of constant-load exercise on the cycle ergometer to evaluate PD, which is calculated as the total number of heart beats of the last 4 min minus the total number of heart beats in the first 4 min of exercise.

The three groups in the study (15 sedentary individuals, 14 students of physical education, and 13 competitive athletes) presented similar blood lactate, heart rate and pulse deficit responses to exercise. For the power output up to the LT1, PD showed no significant changes. For the three groups, a sharp increase in PD was seen at the intensity immediately above LT1. The power output before a sharp increase in PD and the power output corresponding to the LT1 detected during a previous incremental LT test were similar and strongly correlated (r = 0.99, p = 0.0001).

The absolute cut-point value of 25 beats for PD had a sensitivity of 100 %, a specificity of 95 %, and a positive predictive value of 90 % for the detection of LT1. One 8-min submaximal exercise bout can establish if an individual is exercising above or below the LT1.

-----

This next article is close to my own method. In the 2003 thread, I was aiming to get runners to where they could run (as a minimum) for 60 mins at ~85% HRmax without loss of pace. That is, to reach a state where HR and pace were both stable at the same time. If you are running at a steady pace and the HR is rising, or you are running at a steady HR and the pace is dropping, something is not right...

-----

Int J Sports Med 2006; 27: 368-372
Maximal Constant Heart Rate - A Heart Rate Based Method to Estimate Maximal Lactate Steady State in Running
C. Vobejda, K. Fromme, W. Samson, E. Zimmermann

The aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of the maximal constant heart rate method for predicting anaerobic threshold (AnT) in running. This method only requires a common heart rate (HR) monitor and is based on the identification of the maximal constant HR maintainable for 30 min (HRMC).

HRMC and maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) were determined. Mean velocities at maximum constant HR trials and MLSS (r = 0.895; SEE = 0.185 m · s-1; p < 0.001) were highly correlated.

In conclusion, data presented in this study confirm that the determination of HRMC is a manageable method giving a highly accurate estimation of both HR and velocity at MLSS in running.

----

A third method of using HR to detect LT is one I have just recently read in the Spring 1999 edition of BMC News. This is a method designed by British coach Lindsay Dunn. He states that using this simple "field" method of determination was able to give him results "exact to the same BPM" as a laboratory method. Unfortunately due to copyright infringement I am not able to reproduce it here. Perhaps if Lindsay (or someone who knows him) ever reads this, he could drop me a line with more details of this Dunn Test, which I would be happy to reproduce in this thread.

----

BTW In that same issue of BMW News, one article contained some figures for HRs vs race performances which I find inaccurate (eg: HM speed is given as 88% Max HR, and 10k speed is 90% MHR). In my experience these are both underestimations. We have found that it is possible to train so that HM pace is 92-93% HRmax and quite a stable graph, and 10k pace is ~95-96% HRmax, although on a rising graph.