HADD's 2400m test - big difference between HR zones

Based on those numbers alone, the best I can say is you probably spend too much time running too fast, hence the big change between 140 and 150. If you spent months following Hadd's base plan, you would definitely see improvement in the lower HRs as well as solid improvement at the higher HRs.

However, we also don't know your max HR. Those test ranges are recommended for a runner with a max around 195ish. If that is you, great. If not, you might want to do the test in a different range, and that would obviously give you different results.

And what are your goals? Do you have specific races coming up? Do you just want to try a new type of training? You question whether or not you should stick to this type of training, but given your results and questions, it would appear that you haven't put much (any?) time into following Hadd's training. Do you have another 2400m test to compare results with? If not, I do think it would be worth spending at least 12 weeks on it to see where it takes you. Unless of course, you hate the idea of training this way.

I have a question about how you guys even do this test. I tried doing this with very strange results that were significantly worse (HR to pace) than a normal easy run.

For me the test felt like an exercise of futility trying to hit the target HR. I was constantly adjusting my effort to hit the target which resulted in a run lacking any “smoothness” or relaxing feeling.

Clearly, I’m missing something from an execution standpoint. I suspect the only way I could run this test smoothly would be to ignore instantaneous HR and just focus on Lap HR. But I’m not sure if that is a valid process to follow.

I see a LOT of value in this test so I would very much appreciate any feedback from someone seasoned in executing this test.

Nothing strange. If you plot HR vs pace (in seconds) in logarithmic scale, they look pretty straight.

The pace are geometric variables. You should not use differences. The difference will get even larger as you go lower. It's just a mathematical property.

Can't tell from the posted number alone, but need to the whole timepoint chart. Below LT there shouldn't be change in HR (if pace is constant) throughout the interval, or the pace should not need to be dropped in order to keep HR constant. Well above LT, the change should be noticeable. (I like to do this manually on the time chart, using fixed pace progression intervals instead of fixed HR. Hadd would've suggested this if the technology had been widely available then).

There is a possibility that your range of HR above doesn't include the extreme high end. In my Garmin FR935, if I don't go desperately fast on the last interval, it won't report LT. Since it's reporting 181, you need to add one or even two more faster interval (190 and 200) if you want to do it the Hadd's way.

I can see how the test can be tough to nail. It never has been for me. However, I focused on my HR during runs before I learned about Hadd and the test. So I got pretty comfortable hitting specific HRs and paces and whatnot.

If you want to follow the training, you don't have to do the test first. You can just figure out your max HR and from there get your easy run HR and the first tempo level (about 10-15 beats above easy). Spend a month running almost all your miles at the easy HR and two days a week hitting the tempo HR. You'll adjust pretty quickly. Then I bet next time you take the test it will feel much more natural to you.

I have a fenix 5 too. I don't think the wrist HR is as reliable as a chest strap... I see some odd fluctuations compared with subjective effort. I would repeat your test using a chest strap.

4:03/1k is not 10:08/2.4k ..it’s 9:43. lol. you just made all of this up didn’t you, naughty little troll.

I do an ongoing assessment of aerobic fitness during my daily training that is less-structured and way less hassle than Hadd or Maf testing. I have favorite loops that I do at least a few times/week. As I go through certain defined segments (say between two landmarks), I hit the lap feature and it downloads onto Garmin connect along with pace and HR. As my base training progresses, I see a tendency of improved efficiency, i.e. a segment that I used to run at 9:15/mile pace now I do at 8:35 for the same HR. Easy and effective, and motivating on a daily basis without undue stress.

According to my Garmin watch, the GPS says 2.5km for 6 laps on a standard 400m track. The km splits were 3:51, 4:05, 4:21 (for the last 500m). I don't know why it sums it all up to 10:08 for total time, but it does...

I've got no specific race coming up, my goal is to be a healthier, happier and at the same time, a faster runner!

Got seriously injured after an ultra race this summer, which put me in the hospital. That had me thinking more long term about my running and if it's worth it to go with the "no pain, no gain"-approach - which for me meant training hard, balancing on the edge all the time, trying to get as fast as possible for upcoming races (marathons, 10K:s, etc.)

I've been doing MAF for 6 weeks now and found the HADD training program, which seems very interesting!

My plan is to do the HADD training seriously for at least 5-6 months, starting with this test. More tests will therefore come, about every 6 weeks.

I've done all my HR training with a chest strap, as I find it more reliable.

HADDfan wrote:

I can see how the test can be tough to nail. It never has been for me. However, I focused on my HR during runs before I learned about Hadd and the test. So I got pretty comfortable hitting specific HRs and paces and whatnot.

If you want to follow the training, you don't have to do the test first. You can just figure out your max HR and from there get your easy run HR and the first tempo level (about 10-15 beats above easy). Spend a month running almost all your miles at the easy HR and two days a week hitting the tempo HR. You'll adjust pretty quickly. Then I bet next time you take the test it will feel much more natural to you.

Interestingly enough, my daily runs are naturally easier than what Hadd proposed to Joe but that might have been for a very specific purpose suited specifically to Joe’s situation.

Personally, I haven’t done a MaxHR test but have sustained 195-196 during a few hard workouts. I averaged 181 in a recent half marathon and was in the low 170’s at CIM before my HRM faulted about halfway thru. Given all that, my daily runs are usually in the 120’s or 130’s depending on the effort I feel like giving. The hardest running I do in training are long, comfortable tempos between 160-165. In the months leading up to CIM I probably averaged around 70-80 mpw with a peak week of 100.

However I don’t follow HR during the run. It’s all by feel and I analyze the data afterwards. If I tried to run at a rough target of 145 I would find that to be more of a moderate than EZ effort. I suspect my MaxHR is similar to Joe’s based on my races. I wonder if in Joe’s specific case, that Hadd wanted Joe running on the faster side of easy. Something that I’m considering myself to break the monotony.

The numerologist wrote:

Nothing strange. If you plot HR vs pace (in seconds) in logarithmic scale, they look pretty straight.

The pace are geometric variables. You should not use differences. The difference will get even larger as you go lower. It's just a mathematical property.

OK, thanks for the explanation!

I guess the values will be more understandable after performing a few tests...

I followed Hadd's training for several years and had very good (for me) results. In all the time I trained that way (most of the time with his personal advice on an ongoing basis), I never once do a 2400m test. The idea behind the test is to get data on improvements, but you can also see improvements as the training progresses (usually not in linear fashion, at least not in my own experience; more often as sudden unexpected jumps in fitness) as faster paces at the various training HRs. And also, in race results. I'd suggest treating the 2400 test as an idle curiosity rather than an important component of training, and if it's causing analysis paralysis that's a roadblock in your training (as seems to be the case), just don't bother with the test.

Good luck!

Hoek wrote:

The numerologist wrote:

Nothing strange. If you plot HR vs pace (in seconds) in logarithmic scale, they look pretty straight.

The pace are geometric variables. You should not use differences. The difference will get even larger as you go lower. It's just a mathematical property.

OK, thanks for the explanation!

I guess the values will be more understandable after performing a few tests...

If you repeat the same test (same choice of HR), at most you get replication/confirmation. Then, it will still be difficult to say where is the LT. What you need is new "experimental design", i.e., shift the HR range to 150-190, or 155-195.

If you do 10k/10mile/HM races every now and then, you can also use the time chart data. If your pace is mostly constant throughout a race, and the HR increases steadily until it hits close to max near finish, and the duration is about 1 hour, then that's your LT pace.

For aerobic training, the most important is to pick some steady slow pace where the HR should be stable for a long time. (You should allow a small "cardiac drift" particularly in hot weather, a few beats per hour or so, but there shouldn't be any noticeable upward trend in your HR time chart). There is no need to be very precise. The benefit is still there for a very wide range of paces. (It might be even better to vary them, including occasional blocks of marathon pace).

banned Pete wrote:

.... I'd suggest treating the 2400 test as an idle curiosity rather than an important component of training, and if it's causing analysis paralysis that's a roadblock in your training (as seems to be the case), just don't bother with the test.

Good luck!

Thank you! That's my intention with the tests: use them for seeing progression.

Hoek wrote:

The numerologist wrote:

Nothing strange. If you plot HR vs pace (in seconds) in logarithmic scale, they look pretty straight.

The pace are geometric variables. You should not use differences. The difference will get even larger as you go lower. It's just a mathematical property.

OK, thanks for the explanation!

I guess the values will be more understandable after performing a few tests...

I would agree with numerologist.

it is normal, especially for less experienced runners, to see such a drop-off at lower heartrates.

The value of the test would be seen comparing now to tests in 3 months, 6 months, next year, etc...

As you get fitter, you should see these gaps getting smaller, and you should be proportionally much faster at the lower heartrates.

At least that was my experience. I did these tests when making a middle-aged comeback, and found I was terrible at running 130 bpm (my HRmax was lower) at first, but with a lot of practice and many miles of easy running, this gap closed significantly, as I improved across the board.

It's just one more way to get feedback.

With a warmup and cooldown, It's also a pretty decent progressive tempo workout.

rekrunner wrote:

Hoek wrote:

OK, thanks for the explanation!

I guess the values will be more understandable after performing a few tests...

I would agree with numerologist.

... As you get fitter, you should see these gaps getting smaller, and you should be proportionally much faster at the lower heartrates.

So it's pretty normal values I suppose, and they will change with continous training at low HR.

With this knowlegde, can anything be said about the higher HR zones, and the fact that the gaps are tighter there? Does it mean anything that the three last zones are in the 4-5 min/km range?

In a race 18 months ago, my max HR reached 200 (with a chest strap). I was 42 years at the time. I guess I'll have to perform a separate test a la "Joe Friels - 30 min LTHR" or at a lab to really find out my LT. And when I do, should I train at the LT or a few (if so, how many) beats below?

The MAF formula says 180-age, which leaves me with 137. Should I use this value as max for low pulse/aerobic training, or maybe use something like 145 as HADD suggests, based on max HR and the (only) test I've done so far? ... Or does it matter less, what the exact low HR is, as long as it is below N beats/min?

170/min you are traveling @ 7:15/mi ... eyeballing this you’re not in shape or devoid of any talent. nearly what ~ 80-85% max hr ... ?

Hoek wrote:

So it's pretty normal values I suppose, and they will change with continous training at low HR.

With this knowlegde, can anything be said about the higher HR zones, and the fact that the gaps are tighter there? Does it mean anything that the three last zones are in the 4-5 min/km range?

They will change even better with continuous training at balanced HR (say, 80% low, 15% threshold, 5% high).

At the upper range, the HR should plateau with respect to faster pace (but you won't be able to run too long at that pace).

It's easier to think in terms of the pace as the independent variable (the one that you deliberately fix) and the HR as the outcome. It's also easier to do the progression run based on fixed pace intervals. Then you can see there are some upper pace range where the HR doesn't increase anymore (You won't be able to run too long those range, though. And watch your hamstring!). The HR of this plateau should be pretty much the same after continuous training, but the pace where it occurs is faster.