|
Jan 2017
7:49pm, 11 Jan 2017
129 posts
|
Brunski
Yeah that's the group Stuart, the one led by Joe. Know a few mates in that and it's recently been splintering a little and there's a range of runners running the same route from 7-6mm....Sure I'd find a couple running close enough to the required pace for a 75-80% run (whatever pace that ends up being).
Daz, yeah I gave my Garmin strap to a friend as I wasn't using it - might have to try to get it back off him for a few days so I can compare and contrast the readings on my old Forerunner305 (if the brick-sized watch doesn't slow me down too much).
|
|
Jan 2017
8:47pm, 11 Jan 2017
1,231 posts
|
stuart little
It's a good group  Funnily enough I was haranging Joe earlier about using the strap rather than the wrist HR
Optical can be good (I have a scosche strap that's OK for most runs), but I always revert to a strap if I want accuracy, and I'd always want a max value from a chest strap rather than the wrist
|
|
Jan 2017
9:31pm, 11 Jan 2017
130 posts
|
Brunski
Yeah good shout, I've read up lots on the TomTom cardio and think it's accurate at the HR I'm scooting round at day to day, but it's only recently I've been happy with the readings and started checking against pulse mid-run
As the data has been questioned so often now I want to be sure that it's right.... Or if not I'll just bite the bullet and invest in another Garmin with a decent chest monitor!
|
|
Jan 2017
6:32pm, 12 Jan 2017
94 posts
|
glucotab
SPR- The Polarized idea is new to me. How far is Hadd not really Polarized 80:10:10 as never gets LT until the sharpening end of things? The subLT runs are not high intensity, unlikeli-ly every week from starting up therefore? Did I get this right as key difference or not in your view?
|
|
Jan 2017
8:13am, 14 Jan 2017
2 posts
|
teapothouse
I use a Garmin wrist HR too and lately I have been wondering about its accuracy at high rates. I have used its numbers to get my max bpm from my runs and, because now and again it does go on a bit of spike ( and I notice this on my Hadd easy runs when it is clear that I am not doing 170+ bpm! ) I have a feeling that max bpm on more taxing runs is not trustworthy. I have had readings of 190-200 the top end of which is not credible for me ( I am 50 ) so I have estimated at 185 based on some of the max bpm seen on harder efforts, but I wonder if it could be even less........ my RHR is quite low too.
|
|
Jan 2017
9:49am, 14 Jan 2017
10,829 posts
|
Bazoaxe
my HRM has been a bit dodgy for the last week, really low readings last night and tonight so new battery being purchased today.
PS - has anyone here used HADD right through as their marathon programme ? If so, keen to know how you use it, is it just pushing the Sub LT HR up as high as you can get it and on both sub LTs each week. Also, do you push the distance beyond 10m ?
|
|
Jan 2017
1:35pm, 14 Jan 2017
1,365 posts
|
Teknik
Baz I think quite a few have used Hadd as a marathon programme. I have found that the subLTs end up being a bit faster than the MP I end up choosing - and I've never got past 84% for a level HR 10 miler (which is low compared to the faster runners on here).
I think DavieC recommended pushing the subLTs out to 12 or 13 miles as a better check on HR stability. I'm not sure if he meant that for each stage, or just the "this is going to be MP" one.
I'd also recommend putting the second subLT into the long run, once every few weeks - e.g. 5 easy, 13 subLT. If at mile 18 you're still at the right HRmax and haven't drifted up, I'd take that as a very good sign.
|
|
Jan 2017
1:51pm, 14 Jan 2017
5,909 posts
|
paul the builder
Baz - quite a few times I've kept the 10m sub-LT going on a weekly basis all the way up to the race, just increasing the HR by 5bpm when I'm ready (it's rock solid at one level, and feeling OK). It obviously becomes 10 at MP sooner or later if you have the timing right. I haven;t taken it beyond 10, I don't think there's any need. It's still over an hour's pretty hard running for us, after all.
But I've generally always had another session elsewhere in the week - either mile reps, or tempo/HM pace runs. So not strictly the Hadd base phase taken all the way along. I doubt it goes against the principles of the following phase though, to do that.
|
|
Jan 2017
10:32am, 15 Jan 2017
23,400 posts
|
SPR
Glucotab - based on this...
...Only Hadd's 200/200 and 100/100 sessions would fit. Personally I think the 10k of 200/200 plenty high intensity if done weekly and with a stride session is sufficient until you're looking to do specific training.
The only bit missing is the threshold but polarised training hasn't focused on this much, what is being highlighted is the percentage is lower than other plans that might add more. Personally I'd count the Hadd 80% sessions as they are about achieving the same goal (running below threshold is probably better than running above anyway for LT).
|
|
Jan 2017
4:43pm, 15 Jan 2017
95 posts
|
glucotab
SPR - Useful graph. I think I saw it on the lecture linked (?) and does highlight the major differences between types of training, with links to duration.
Your last point that LT training can be subLT training anyway - is interesting. I hadn`t thought that. I had thought of subLT as avoiding the Lactate Threshold, but you could be right. They are not the High Intensity of Polarized method clearly though, and the optional 200/200 and 100/100 would match up with that - though I think Hadd has these as `optional` rather than essential ( where Polarized method might insist?)
|
