Hadd Test results advice for 2:25 marathoner

I have no idea about the answer to your question but I like the fact that you are acting as a guinea pig. I have always thought that the subject in Hadd's writings may have seen quick improvements (at least partly) because of weight loss. As a pretty quick dude, if you get a PR, it should lend some credibility to Hadd's theories.

Young man, you are "aerobically developed"! Your 2012 times are incredibly consistant at a VDOT of 68.8 across the board!Confirm this for yourself here:http://www.attackpoint.org/trainingpaces.jsp?dist=13.1&units=miles&time=10922

arcijs31 wrote:

Age 26, Male, RH 37, MHR 193 Conditions 38 degrees 5mph winds. PR 2012- Marathon 2:25:16, HF 1:09:22, 10k 32:16, 15:06 (road)

2011 Marathon 2:29:23, HF 1:08:40, 5k 1512, 3k 8:42 3k

Your PRs are consistent and your Hadd test doesn't show any obvious weaknesses. It shouldn't be necessary for you to spend a lot of time with Hadd's phase 1.

A remark though. The point of the Hadd test is to find the pace that corresponds to a given heart rate. You've used an average over 2.4k starting from still stand. This means your HR at the end of the interval probably was higher than the target HR. It would have been better if you had followed Hadd's detailed instructions. Increase the pace slowly until your HR reaches target HR, then measure the pace from that point to the end. It doesn't really matter if you only measure the 4 last laps. What matters is that you hold a steady pace and steady target HR. On the other hand, as you've supposedly done the same for all the intervals, their relative values should still be fairly correct.

As the pace decreases 23 seconds from HR140 to HR150 but more from HR150 to H160 (27s) there's something "wrong" here. That doesn't matter. But it may be due to including the rising HR into the average. Also, if you haven't run much on low or high HRs lately, your lack of rythm will skew the test.

Your pace at 170 corresponds to your target MP. But again, if the average HR for all 6 laps is 170 your stable pace at 170 is probably slower, that is, you cannot today run your target MP at your normal marathon HR.

The lactate values (I assume they're actual values taken from your finger) confirm this. You would not be able to run a marathon at 4.1 mmol. Even if this value may need to be calibrated, it would still be too high to keep for a whole marathon.

As I said, I don't think Hadd's phase 1 will serve you much. Your results show you're a balanced runner and that your training is good. I say this even if I'm a great believer in Hadd's base building. My 2 cents would rather be to start building a base the same way as you've done before but incorporate some new elements to get new stimulation. For example you could draw inspiration from Canova's marathon training:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=308092

Another test you could do is Hadd's 1 hour test. Run for 1 hour at target MP and see if your marathon HR stabilizes at your marathon target HR. That's a much better test for marathon preparedness than the 2.4k test.

Thanks so much for your help and advice.

the actual heart rate average for each was

140-139

150-149

160 -158

170-167

180- 176

Usually it took me 400 meters to get there and then always stay or go one above or two or below it was hard always to keep exactly. I never once had to slow down actually, so i did take 1.5 laps to get there and then maintain that's why the averages are lower. hope that clears up.

In terms of lactate I did take it from the finger usually . My lactate during some of the workouts before twin cities half was like 3.1 for 530 pace at for 10k in workout. I am not sure but I think that is the most i can keep the pace going before going over.

I had lab tests also done at laboratory to find out my anaerobic threshold which was HR 176 and usually at 3.0 on the test back in July.

My question is what if I still do hadd approach for January and February and get better aerobically. I been using canova phase in specific marathoning, in september I did marathon in practice in 2:35 with 161 average heart rate. Do you think its possible to squeeze more from this approach for example to be able to run 6 flat at 150 hr and so on. I have improved every year with this approach so maybe the saying keep doing what has worked is good. Any advice I appreciate a lot. Thanks for taking time

Hey, did you hear that Suzy Favor Hamilton is a call girl?

It looks like you know what you're doing with HR and lactate so I won't comment on that.

Anyway, your training has been going well and you should be careful when you change it. The question is not so much whether you will profit from a different stimulus but what you will lose from not doing what has given you results. Consequently, if you're previous base training was very different from Hadd's base phase, you should rather try to incorporate some of it instead of doing something completely new. Let's take a few points:

Easy runs:

If you've run your easy runs quite fast, you can try to slow them down to HR140-150. However, in my view, you MUST adjust the mileage so that the total effort is the same or higher. I've read several stories where runners have lost their fitness because they somehow thought "slow easy" mileage magically would be better than "fast easy" even if nothing else changed. Similarly if you just jog up the hills to keep HR down, you may need to add a little more hill training.

Tempo build up:

For some people long tempos work very well. If that's the case for you then building up in Hadd style should work. But if you for instance have relied on regular intervals at 10k-speed, it's risky to simply stop that and do two long tempos a week instead.

Speed:

Hadd dispenses with pretty much all faster running. Not surprisingly he reported that Joe had lost all his speed when running that 5k. I'm pretty sure though, that a couple of weekly easy strides would have rectified that.

My points are: 1) don't throw your successful training over board, 2) try to integrate something new, but 3) compensate for what you lose.

Wish you luck!

Thanks so much,

Just wondering are you a coach or an athlete.

I did use hadd approach for 2:25 where I did lot of running at 144 heart rate which was recommended by laboratory good fat/carb 40/60% type of thing. In one month I was able to run from 712 pace to 635 at that heart rate in runs at 60 min.

If you have email and wouldn't mind looking to some training from this past year online I would be willing to share to get some advice. I am also a coach in college and high school but when it comes to coaching myself I end up being a Ginny pig and therefore always looking for good advice.

Also I did absolutely nothing faster then 530 for most part. My main workouts where this 10 mile in and out with hill at mile 7 which usually represents what I can run my marathon at. I did a 10 mile last year 542 at 170 and I ran 2:29:23 in st.louis which is 542 same pace.

This year I did 532 with 170 many times and that's what I ran in twin cities 532 pace. , two miles were 601 and 602 23 and 24 uphill which ruined my sub 2:24 possibility.

I'm just an athlete (much slower than you) and a hobby-coach for a group of master runners. So I really don't feel confident in giving you detailed advice. Making a guy run sub 3 is mostly a matter of increasing mileage and long tempos. At your level you need to keep an eye on your special strengths and weaknesses.

Hadd's phase 1 is good for pretty much everyone at a lower level. But when you reach a certain level, say 2:40, and your PRs are consistent over a range of distances, then his training isn't really better or worse than any other base training. The question is whether it works for you. And obviously it did work for your 2:25, so just stick to it. There's no way a couple of months of Hadd training can harm you.

Your natural goal should be the trials in 2016. A 2:18 is definitely doable by that time. I'd say you can even afford testing the grounds somewhat now. Make up a decision about what you want to change (mileage, intensities, number of long runs, whatever), stick to it for at least a month and evaluate the results. Being your own test subject, you should assess your training status fairly regularly (say 5, 3 and 1 months before marathon) either with races or tests. This will be your guide in the next years. Keep your eyes on the horizon!

Just a note about the Hadd test. I don't like spending a whole workout (plus eventual taper) on the test. So I often just run the test for the three lowest target HRs on an easy day I feel good. Concerning the target marathon HR, I'll get a grip of the corresponding pace at most tempo runs. This way you can keep an overview without interfering with the training. But don't get too anal about it because the HR can vary quite a bit from day to day.

Please keep checking in and updating us on your progress.

Thanks so much for help.

HADD says you should be able to run marathon at 170 and for me that is always the case.

Did HADD give any % of MHR or HRR that should correspond to Marathon Pace? I have not run a Marathon but I know my Max HR is ~178 and 170 is about what I would be seeing around the start to middle of the last mile of a 5K

Well the guy he trained Joe happens to have same maximum heart rate like mine 193, and also from previous experience 170 is something it stays for me which is 89% of max heart rate.

I am sure it goes like first 10 mile maybe 160- 168

10 miles 168- 172

last 6 maybe 172- 175

During the race its different than training. In training i mean it depends on the course I always train on hard courses with inclines so I might be doing 520 pace on 165 on way out but 550 at 175 on way back because of hills.

I'm straying a bit off topic here, but I'm interested anyway...

My PRs are eerily similar to yours: 15:09 (road 5k), 32:15 (road 10k), 1:08:58 (half marathon), 2:29:55 (marathon)...and I'm also 26 years old.

I've never done any sort of heart rate training, don't know resting heart rate, max heart rate, any specific zones, etc. I also know nothing about the Hadd test or the training in general. I'm simply curious to see what type of training it took you to get from that 2:29 to 2:25. I'm running Boston in the spring and hope to run in the 2:25 range.

hey Pablo.

It was very quick preparation in terms of time. I started in July 25 my base coming straight from half marathon, 10k and 5k, I actually did not take any breaks.

But anyway I spent 6 weeks running from 135- 150 heart rate about 90-100 miles long run and doubles. For me that was pace like maybe anywhere from 630 to 700 for 144 HR, and 730 recovery pace sometimes 8 minutes. Then September I spent doing like specific work marathon like 10 mile at 170 average heart rate which was 55:00 minutes for me. I did variation runs 10 mile 6:00- 5:30- 6:00- 5:30 and so on.

I also did long run every 10 days. I was doing them more faster this year because I spent 1 year every week doing 22 miles at 8 minute pace, so I felt I needed more specific long run. I ran on percentages like 22 miles at 95% of marathon pace so if the goal pace was 530 i would run 545 to 600 lot of times and make it feel comfortable. I also 5 weeks out did marathon in practice 235 5:57 pace while practicing drinking. I need staff like that for confidence so i dont know if i recomend that for other people. IT doesnt wipe me out. However i do take it easy for 3 days after. i did half marathon 4 weeks before all out and sadly in great conditions I only managed 1:12:30 , but I knew that i should not worry because i think the muscle tension was way off and I was flat but i felt I could for long time at that pace, which gave me a clue that I can do this pace in marathon.

So simply I spent 6 weeks base, 6 weeks specific and 2:25 middle of 100 mile week with no taper. I dont respond well to taper at all.

hope i can help let me know

Thanks! There's some good stuff in there.

I did similar workouts prior to my 2:29 (18 miles @ 5:50 pace, 10 mile runs @ 5:40, etc). However, that cycle had a 10 week specific period, and I felt pretty tired towards the end of it all...and on the verge of injury. I'm trying something different this time around: 7 week base with 3 very light workouts per week, followed by a 6 week specific period prior to taper going into Boston.

Although I am astonished you didn't taper before Twin Cities. I've run great races with no taper, and great races with a taper, but I've never tried "not tapering" for a marathon. I don't think I'm willing to risk it either.

it would be interesting to see your heart rate zones , maybe you should try to run with it. I like date and improvments, i think different runners get motivated from different things. I really like to see the true in training, it tells me If I will hit the marathon times and its nothing but the true. its a great feeling going in the race knowing you will hit the goal time if nothing crazy goes wrong.

about the tiredness I agree I always felt like one injury small one was followed by other. i did try to run non important runs on trails and hills, and i did lot of core and naps, and ice bath and salt bath, and sauna sessions.

when you mean base period with 3 light workouts explain further your idea here?

Sometimes tapering too much is not needed as Canova also says maybe last two days but again that is very individual and I will not say what it right or wrong if it works for you then great! Can I ask what other marathon times do you have and your progression . i could send you exactly what i did last 8 weeks so maybe you try something or just get the general idea what worked for me, and maybe since you have similar pr might work for you .

good indicator will always be that 10 mile sub tempo marathon run if you can run at like 532 pace with same effort that you ran 540 pace will be good indicator but many times in practice you are always tired and it will feel like shit sometimes but just get through it.

What about long runs?

arcijs31,

Man, what you're doing is great! I wish I had all the resources to do this intricate of testing on myself--the whole concept of what you're doing in, pardon the expression, playing with yourself sounds really interesting. Further, what you've gotten out of it so far seems like it has both been a huge confidence booster when walking to the line, as well as been able to predict your results quite well.

Looking at what you've done, I certainly agree with what hadder has said regarding going about this next preparation cycle. A block of the training you're talking about early in the cycle would, I feel, likely be neither harmful nor extremely helpful. You seem to do a good job of running the 'correct' paces already throughout your training, and have found a good way to incorporate Canova's stuff into your regime in an effective manner (and handle it well, too!).

I would also like to see a series of updates on how things go this cycle for you as the whole prospect of preparing for marathon/half-marathon is on the horizon and is still a concept I struggle with mightily as it's unfamiliar. Seeing how things work for you and how you plan it would be quite interesting, especially since you have so much data!

Quite sorry I didn't really answer any questions or offer much advise--mainly just wanted to chime in that what you're proposing (and doing) sounds grand and is, to my lame ass, super cool.

*Side note: I do my easy runs by HR, and tried doing total HR-based training this past summer. However, I tested my HR and got a max of 185 (22yrs old). That's not an issue, but I found that my easy runs this summer, to keep things under 140, would be in the 8:20-8:50 range, with my "tempo" efforts between 6:30 and 6:40. This is as someone who has run over 60s faster than you over 5k and 3min+ over 10k. So for me I had to give it up just out of...frustration. This leads me to the point I forgot to make: You sound like a damn aerobic monster! Props, dude, and good luck this spring!*