Hadd training results after 8 weeks.

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I did my second "Hadd" test today, about 2 months after going on his

gradual

Quoted message said:

aerobic conditioning program (no speedwork or LT work, but 80% max hr
running on my harder days. Other runs were in the low 70% range).

For comparison purposes, could you summarize your effort levels prior to the
2 months on Hadd? Where and how is it different?

Quoted message said:

The results are pretty amazing. At each heartrate level, I'm 20 - 32
seconds faster/mile than I was two months ago. I have done two mild
speedworkouts in the last two weeks, and did a hard (but slow-paced) 1

hour

Quoted message said:

mountain uphill race last Saturday, so some of the improvement is due to
that.

Quite amazing. How long were your efforts at 80%, as a percentage of your
weekly total?

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Donovan took the test in June, also, and his numbers are there for
comparison. Donovan has a higher max HR (being a 30-something), and mine
maxes out at only 180-185 or so, so he would kill me in a race, but I've

got

Quoted message said:

him in the speed per heartbeat department...

I did 1 mile at each heart rate, starting at 130, then going
to 150, 160, 170. It was easy to get it right at the lower paces.

I had a hard time motivating myself at the 170. Last time I did the test,

a

Quoted message said:

fast friend was running a long tempo in the low 6's, and I could use him

to

Quoted message said:

help pace myself. This time, alone, it took me two laps to gradually get

it

Quoted message said:

up to 170, so my avg hr was only 164, and I adjusted the time downward

from

Quoted message said:

the raw time of 6:22.

Consolidated results:

~6/12/05
HR Donovan Dan 6/16 Dan 8/18
130 9:43 9:22
140 8:42 8:37 8:01
150 7:45 7:50 7:27
160 7:10 7:18 6:40
170 6:30* 6:40 6:08*
180 5:57* (Too close to Dan's max hr)

* Note: Donovan's 170 and 180 were actually 173 6:24 and 183 5:52,
respectively. His times are adjusted on the chart above. Dan's 8/18 170
was really 164 6:22 and is adjusted on the chart.

Dan Stumpus said:

I did my second "Hadd" test today, about 2 months after going on his gradual
aerobic conditioning program (no speedwork or LT work, but 80% max hr
running on my harder days. Other runs were in the low 70% range).

Quoted message said:

The results are pretty amazing. At each heartrate level, I'm 20 - 32
seconds faster/mile than I was two months ago.

.....

Quoted message said:

Consolidated results:

Quoted message said:

~6/12/05
HR Donovan Dan 6/16 Dan 8/18
130 9:43 9:22
140 8:42 8:37 8:01
150 7:45 7:50 7:27
160 7:10 7:18 6:40
170 6:30* 6:40 6:08*
180 5:57* (Too close to Dan's max hr)

Did you take into consideration other factors such as:
- weight
- time of the day
- temperature/humidity/etc
- amount of sleep the previous night

Were they the same (close to same) for the two sets?

If you look at the differences:
8:37 - 8:01 = 36 seconds
7:50 - 7:27 = 23
7:18 - 6:40 = 38
6:40 - 6:08 = 32

Wouldn't you expect the differences to follow some sort of
a smooth(er) curve instead of an up-down-up-down plot?

jobs

Hello! i am very surprized with your results or perhaps i am not. How many
miles have you done in the two months (aerobic state)? And how many miles
for month have you done, before that? We have to take in consideration all
the facts.
Good runs.
Jesus
"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> escreveu na mensagem
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I did my second "Hadd" test today, about 2 months after going on his

gradual

Quoted message said:

aerobic conditioning program (no speedwork or LT work, but 80% max hr
running on my harder days. Other runs were in the low 70% range).

The results are pretty amazing. At each heartrate level, I'm 20 - 32
seconds faster/mile than I was two months ago. I have done two mild
speedworkouts in the last two weeks, and did a hard (but slow-paced) 1

hour

Quoted message said:

mountain uphill race last Saturday, so some of the improvement is due to
that.

Donovan took the test in June, also, and his numbers are there for
comparison. Donovan has a higher max HR (being a 30-something), and mine
maxes out at only 180-185 or so, so he would kill me in a race, but I've

got

Quoted message said:

him in the speed per heartbeat department...

I did 1 mile at each heart rate, starting at 130, then going
to 150, 160, 170. It was easy to get it right at the lower paces.

I had a hard time motivating myself at the 170. Last time I did the test,

a

Quoted message said:

fast friend was running a long tempo in the low 6's, and I could use him

to

Quoted message said:

help pace myself. This time, alone, it took me two laps to gradually get

it

Quoted message said:

up to 170, so my avg hr was only 164, and I adjusted the time downward

from

Quoted message said:

the raw time of 6:22.

Consolidated results:

~6/12/05
HR Donovan Dan 6/16 Dan 8/18
130 9:43 9:22
140 8:42 8:37 8:01
150 7:45 7:50 7:27
160 7:10 7:18 6:40
170 6:30* 6:40 6:08*
180 5:57* (Too close to Dan's max hr)

* Note: Donovan's 170 and 180 were actually 173 6:24 and 183 5:52,
respectively. His times are adjusted on the chart above. Dan's 8/18 170
was really 164 6:22 and is adjusted on the chart.

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I did my second "Hadd" test today, about 2 months after going on his

gradual

Quoted message said:

aerobic conditioning program (no speedwork or LT work, but 80% max hr
running on my harder days. Other runs were in the low 70% range).

For comparison purposes, could you summarize your effort levels prior to
the
2 months on Hadd? Where and how is it different?

I average about 70 mpw year-round. My max HR is 180 - 185. I'm 53 years
old. Since I returned to racing 3 years ago after a 16 year layoff, I've
been dissatisfied with my performance relative to wava (I was a bit over
80%, 33:xx 10k, 2:3x marathon when younger). Now I'm barely 70% as a 50+,
despite diligent training.

In the last few years I would run for 3-6 weeks in the 125 - 135 Hr zone (my
former endurance phase), then I would roll into 2 days/week of LT (150+) and
speed (165+) work for 4-5 weeks prior to a race or series of races.

I always do a 20 miler (+/- 4) on Saturday, usually in the 130-135 zone, but
occasionally I'd knock out a long run averaging 140-145.

I now believe that I was shortchanging my aerobic development, and assuming
that simply on account of the high average mileage I was running, that my
base conditioning was solid. After reading Hadd, I saw that there was an
entire training zone between easy (130-ish) and hard (150+) that I was
ignoring.

So I decided to introduce 2 10 mile hilly "medium" (145 ish) effort runs per
week, for 8 weeks. This course has 1740' of climb and is on unpaved roads
and singletrack. Only then would I shift over into speedwork (but less of
it) and LT work (occasional short races).

This is the result of that 8 weeks, although I did cheat and run two mild
speed sessions and a 1 hour mountain race just last Saturday. Now I will be
doing one speed workout/week leading up to my target race (Malibu Bulldog
50k on 8/27). I will continue the "medium" run 1/week.

-- Dan

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Consolidated results:

Quoted message said:

~6/12/05
HR Donovan Dan 6/16 Dan 8/18
130 9:43 9:22
140 8:42 8:37 8:01
150 7:45 7:50 7:27
160 7:10 7:18 6:40
170 6:30* 6:40 6:08*
180 5:57* (Too close to Dan's max hr)

Did you take into consideration other factors such as:
- weight
- time of the day
- temperature/humidity/etc
- amount of sleep the previous night

Same weight. Same time of day (6:30am). Cool (60's), overcast and a bit
muggy.
Less sleep this time (awoke at 4:00am). Sleep doesn't make much difference
to my running.

Quoted message said:

If you look at the differences:
8:37 - 8:01 = 36 seconds
7:50 - 7:27 = 23
7:18 - 6:40 = 38
6:40 - 6:08 = 32

Wouldn't you expect the differences to follow some sort of
a smooth(er) curve instead of an up-down-up-down plot?

Yes it is interesting, but I'm just running and keeping my HR at a certain
level, and those were the results. Sometimes I'd daydream and find my pulse
was higher or lower than target, and I'd adjust speed, but there was very
little of that, except for the last 170 effort. As discussed earlier, it
took me a couple of laps to reach 170, but in the other cases I was at
target HR within 220 yds.

-- Dan

"Luciano Jesus" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hello! i am very surprized with your results or perhaps i am not. How many
miles have you done in the two months (aerobic state)? And how many miles
for month have you done, before that? We have to take in consideration all
the facts.

I average a bit over 70 mi/week, typically: Mon-Sun: 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, 20,
9. I'm pretty consistent. What changes is the effort levels and types of
workouts as I phase from endurance to peaking.

I maintain this mileage throughout the year, with a few taper weeks of 40 -
60 mpw.

After a major race (eg, a 50 miler), I'll back off my mileage for a couple
of weeks.

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

I think you go on the right way.With such a great base, you can run faster

in the >short and long distances. Many europeans and americans burn their
indurance

Quoted message said:

bases with hard interval training two or three times a week in the track.
Sorry my bad english.
Good runs.
Jesus

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> escreveu na mensagem
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Luciano Jesus" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hello! i am very surprized with your results or perhaps i am not. How

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

miles have you done in the two months (aerobic state)? And how many

miles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for month have you done, before that? We have to take in consideration

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the facts.

I average a bit over 70 mi/week, typically: Mon-Sun: 8, 10, 8, 10, 8,

20,

Quoted message said:

9. I'm pretty consistent. What changes is the effort levels and types of
workouts as I phase from endurance to peaking.

I maintain this mileage throughout the year, with a few taper weeks of

40 -

Quoted message said:

60 mpw.

After a major race (eg, a 50 miler), I'll back off my mileage for a couple
of weeks.

-- Dan

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I did my second "Hadd" test today, about 2 months after going on his

gradual

Quoted message said:

aerobic conditioning program (no speedwork or LT work, but 80% max hr
running on my harder days. Other runs were in the low 70% range).

For comparison purposes, could you summarize your effort levels prior to
the
2 months on Hadd? Where and how is it different?

I average about 70 mpw year-round. My max HR is 180 - 185. I'm 53 years
old. Since I returned to racing 3 years ago after a 16 year layoff, I've
been dissatisfied with my performance relative to wava (I was a bit over
80%, 33:xx 10k, 2:3x marathon when younger). Now I'm barely 70% as a 50+,
despite diligent training.

In the last few years I would run for 3-6 weeks in the 125 - 135 Hr zone

(my

Quoted message said:

former endurance phase), then I would roll into 2 days/week of LT (150+)

and

Quoted message said:

speed (165+) work for 4-5 weeks prior to a race or series of races.

I take it you didn't do two full 10 mile runs at 150+, like the 145ish runs
you've been doing under Hadd.

Quoted message said:

I always do a 20 miler (+/- 4) on Saturday, usually in the 130-135 zone,

but

Quoted message said:

occasionally I'd knock out a long run averaging 140-145.

I now believe that I was shortchanging my aerobic development, and

assuming

Quoted message said:

that simply on account of the high average mileage I was running, that my
base conditioning was solid. After reading Hadd, I saw that there was an
entire training zone between easy (130-ish) and hard (150+) that I was
ignoring.

It appears that these longer efforts "comfortably" lower than LT were far
more effective in raising your LT, is that how you read it? Less trauma,
and less risk of burning the candle too close to LT, with the possiblity of
burning up some hard-won endurance as a result.

Quoted message said:

So I decided to introduce 2 10 mile hilly "medium" (145 ish) effort runs

per

Quoted message said:

week, for 8 weeks. This course has 1740' of climb and is on unpaved roads
and singletrack. Only then would I shift over into speedwork (but less of
it) and LT work (occasional short races).

This is the result of that 8 weeks, although I did cheat and run two mild
speed sessions and a 1 hour mountain race just last Saturday. Now I will

be

Quoted message said:

doing one speed workout/week leading up to my target race (Malibu Bulldog
50k on 8/27). I will continue the "medium" run 1/week.

I'm no connoisseur of training methods, but I've really liked using a HRM
for training since I got it about 6 years ago. When I found out last year
that the Conconi method was bunk, and that there's really no reliable way to
pinpoint the LT region (aside possibly from working with a renowned expert
in lactate testing), I was disappointed. (I mean you *can* deduce it from
race efforts and the like if you race frequently, but it also seems to be
too variable to be used precisely for training).

I still think the HRM is a fantastic feedback tool, not just for keeping
bread-and-butter runs under control, but also particularly for keeping
effort runs in at a certain effort when track-pacing won't work (eg. for
trail runners). In Hadd I see an encouraging way to make very good use of
the HRM in training, without needing to pinpoint the LT region as precisely.

Thanks for posting your experiment here; it made me go back ad re-read all
of Hadd. In addition to his specific training methods, I think there are
lessons to be learned in there for all runners who want to use a HRM
effectively in training.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

-- Dan

Tony S. said:

It appears that these longer efforts "comfortably" lower than LT were far
more effective in raising your LT, is that how you read it? Less trauma,
and less risk of burning the candle too close to LT, with the possiblity of
burning up some hard-won endurance as a result.

The metabolic adaptions "should not be" any different running slow or running
fast -- increase the speed and you just increase glucose metabolism. I've
personally enjoyed good results doing a my recovery runs at a very easy pace
(slower than 8:30, sometimes as slow as 10:00) Apparently, Morceli also did his
recovery runs as slow as 10 minutes per mile. If it's good enough for him, it's
good enough for me. I'd rather have some in reserve on the easy runs so that I
can either run my speed workouts harder or get in more miles.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony S. said:

It appears that these longer efforts "comfortably" lower than LT were

far

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more effective in raising your LT, is that how you read it? Less

trauma,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and less risk of burning the candle too close to LT, with the possiblity

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

burning up some hard-won endurance as a result.

The metabolic adaptions "should not be" any different running slow or

running

Quoted message said:

fast -- increase the speed and you just increase glucose metabolism. I've
personally enjoyed good results doing a my recovery runs at a very easy

pace

Quoted message said:

(slower than 8:30, sometimes as slow as 10:00) Apparently, Morceli also

did his

Quoted message said:

recovery runs as slow as 10 minutes per mile. If it's good enough for him,

it's

Quoted message said:

good enough for me. I'd rather have some in reserve on the easy runs so

that I

Quoted message said:

can either run my speed workouts harder or get in more miles.

Well, I was referring to Dan's two 10 mile "effort" days at ~145 - versus
two faster LT workout days - but I certainly agree with what you say. This
year I've done all my normal running easy (aiming for ~70%), and my biking
"recovery" days even easier (~60-65%). Then, when I've gone harder (I was
doing parts of at least one run per week at 83-85%) I've felt great, unlike
last year when I struggled.

Hadd stated pretty clearly, and gave some evidence to back it up, that doing
your normal runs too fast will inadequetly train the slow-twitch fibres.
This year I had already slowed down my runs early in the season hoping to
avoid late season burnout. For me this meant adding in walk breaks
sometimes. Then as I added my tempo runs, I had read Hadd, and felt ok doing
them slower than I normally would. But since my mileage is low, I can't
really follow the Hadd program as Dan more or less is. Nonetheless I think
I've also gotten good results from what I've been doing this year. The
weight loss is of course the biggest key since it's also helped me to run
more and to maintain a lower HR without walking.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony S. said:

I've also gotten good results from what I've been doing this year. The
weight loss is of course the biggest key since it's also helped me to run
more and to maintain a lower HR without walking.

I recently dropped from ~160 to ~151 and it does make a huge difference,
especially in warm conditions. I've been running summer workouts, even workouts
like 2x2.4 miles, at a similar pace to what I ran when it's cooler. You just
don't wilt in the heat as much if you're lighter.

I think you're going to find that being around 160 as opposed to 180 is going
to make a huge impact on performance over all distances, but especially long
distances, and especially races that involve climbing (most ultras!) or warm
conditions.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I recently dropped from ~160 to ~151 and it does make a huge difference,

Sounds like your case of HIV is advancing rapidly Donnie. I hope you
and the "MR" are practicing safe sex (screwing safes is the only thing
left for you now).

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the last few years I would run for 3-6 weeks in the 125 - 135 Hr zone
(my
former endurance phase), then I would roll into 2 days/week of LT (150+)
and
speed (165+) work for 4-5 weeks prior to a race or series of races.

I take it you didn't do two full 10 mile runs at 150+, like the 145ish
runs
you've been doing under Hadd.

No, I would do a 40 min at ~150+ or 15-18 minutes of speedwork a couple
times/week.

I did almost no running in that sweet spot of comfortably quick (142-150).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After reading Hadd, I saw that there was an
entire training zone between easy (130-ish) and hard (150+) that I was
ignoring.

It appears that these longer efforts "comfortably" lower than LT were far
more effective in raising your LT, is that how you read it? Less trauma,
and less risk of burning the candle too close to LT, with the possiblity
of
burning up some hard-won endurance as a result.

Yes, it was interesting that an enjoyable workout was more effective than
the harder stuff.

Quoted message said:

I'm no connoisseur of training methods, but I've really liked using a HRM
for training since I got it about 6 years ago. When I found out last year
that the Conconi method was bunk, and that there's really no reliable way
to
pinpoint the LT region (aside possibly from working with a renowned expert
in lactate testing), I was disappointed. (I mean you *can* deduce it from
race efforts and the like if you race frequently, but it also seems to be
too variable to be used precisely for training).

I always assumed that LT was about 10k pace (at 4 miles :-). If you know
how that feels (I've run about 150 of them), then it's easy to run x beats
below that, and get a feel for that effort level. That sub-LT level gets
nudged upward if your training is going well.

-- Dan