Hadd's Approach To Distance Running

168 watchers

Julii Jan 2017 4:29pm, 28 Jan 2017 17 posts	0 Julii Yeah fair enough, maybe they are all are unproven! Which makes it even more confusing that people get so evangelical in their suggestions or about some programmes are wonderful & always work M̶A̶F̶M̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶e̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶. Cool if you found something that you enjoy, anyway.
glucotab Jan 2017 5:25pm, 28 Jan 2017 102 posts	0 glucotab SPR- can.milesplit.com (4th one down on the sidebar, page 2) letsrun.com (this is where it Peteq2`s link led anyway)
SPR Jan 2017 5:29pm, 28 Jan 2017 23,480 posts	0 SPR Thanks.
glucotab Jan 2017 7:25pm, 30 Jan 2017 105 posts	0 glucotab How to get something bigger out of the marathon?? I think it probably is just actually letting your body enjoy its mitochondria growth - before you burn off that development so fast, it was like it never happened. Kind of lethal acidosis of the blood `muscles`/ engines. In other words, one zone at a time - until `comfortably`does do it.
glucotab Jan 2017 6:19pm, 31 Jan 2017 106 posts	0 glucotab Julii - I hear your resentment about `evangelical` approaches, but the odd swoon for a new coach/apologist can be really motivational. That said, not sure the Hadd approach is vastly different to the mainstream Lydiardesque ideas about mileage and steady-as-she-goes `builds` etc, just another way of prioritizing: `Avoid early injury and burn out.`
SPR Jan 2017 8:53pm, 31 Jan 2017 23,484 posts	0 SPR I don't think Hadd is supposed to be different, it just uses HR to control paces. AFAIK Hadd wasn't trying to say he'd come up with something new or sell anything. Your Sub LT run for example is likely akin to Lydiard best aerobic pace.
Canute Jan 2017 11:51pm, 31 Jan 2017 1,798 posts	0 Canute As SPR says, Hadd is very similar to Lydiard, but with Hadd’s HR guidance providing a more explicit guide to effort than Lydiard’s description of quarter, half, three quarter effort sessions. With regard to scientific evidence, both had to rely on anecdotal evidence. However, the proposal that high intensity training damages mitochondrial (aerobic) enzyme development has received only minimal support from subsequent scientific studies. Studies of HIIT demonstrate that HIIT is a very efficient way of developing mitochondrial enzymes. This does not necessarily means that HIIT should be included in base-building for a marathon, though in fact a large amount of anecdotal evidence based on systematic study of the training of elite distance runners in the past decade or so does indicate that many elite athletes do some high intensity sessions during base-building
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) Feb 2017 4:35pm, 1 Feb 2017 241 posts	0 SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss) I think one thing that needs to be considered is how much of any regime's efficacy is down to the regime itself, because simply by adhering to any regime means that you will be doing more running and on a consistent basis that you have been. This in itself (however slow or fast you run) will give you improved fitness which could be identified through HR-pace.
Brunski Feb 2017 4:54pm, 1 Feb 2017 161 posts	0 Brunski Not been on this thread for a while but my running has continued improving, as I've said before I'm kind of doing Hadd lite, so lots of the aerobic miles, where my pace is increasing quite dramatically but I've not done as many of the sub-LT runs. I also do a weekly parkrun and those have been improving of late and have brought my 5k PB down to 17:31. The staple of my training has been running at around 70% MHR, so with a target HR between 135-145, this HR is comfortable in the whole, but I need to get moving to get to this HR. Today on a rolling route I averaged 6:48 per mile, whereas in November I ran the same route 3 times to the same HR band at 7:08 7:10 & 7:10 pace. On a flat route it's closer to 6:30 pace at 140 BPM. In my parkruns I'm hitting 175-190 BPM and 5:38 per mile, but averaging around 85% MHR, whereas I think this could/should be higher. Running like this I have got my mileage up to 55-65 a week, with a couple of doubles thrown in, but at 41 and 13 stone I don't feel like doing the sub LT runs @ 160 BPM. I'm guessing they'd come in sub 6 minute milling, as I do a 'tempo on a Thursday and usually get to near 6 @ 145-155 BPM, but it's an effort to get the HR up like this. This last week I've added in a bit of speed work, attacking (and getting) a few tough ~~strava~~ CRs and a bit of a 30/30 workout at 15 secs per mile under my 5k pace. My question is, I'm managing to run daily now and getting improvements, would I be able to race better with some genuine sub-LT workouts? I've got a 10k this Sunday and am going to take a rest day, maybe 2 tomorrow/Friday so I feel fresh and am going to attempt to run it very close to my 5k pace, as should be able to hold the pace/HR for 10k. Do you agree? I've not raced a rested 5k since starting this training and run consistently sub 18 now!
Huntsman Feb 2017 5:08pm, 1 Feb 2017 4,940 posts	0 Huntsman If you're aerobically well trained then HADD states that your 10k pace will be 15 secs per mile slower than your 5k pace. Brunski haven't we discussed your HR recordings before? These are a couple of your recent runs and I think your HR monitor is recording dodgy figures - 1) 1m - 5:48(5:48/m) 94/113bpm 2) 1m - 5:51(5:51/m) 107/158bpm 3) 1m - 5:46(5:46/m) 154/162bpm 4) 0.03m - 9(4:26/m) 162/163bpm 1) 1m - 9:03(9:03/m) 100/114bpm 2) 1m - 8:50(8:50/m) 109/121bpm 3) 1m - 8:26(8:26/m) 96/118bpm 4) 1m - 9:06(9:06/m) 102/123bpm 5) 0.03m - 13(7:09/m) 91/94bpm