A Slow Journey to Faster Times

belcarra · 26-03-2014 11:10AM

Regarding a new plan to follow: Don't want to put any pressure on us but myself, AMK and Gavlor have been following this plan since Xmas.
By the end of April you should know how we got on and if it worked for us. So far though all three of us are pretty happy with our training though.

yaboya1 · 26-03-2014 11:15AM

belcarra wrote: »

Regarding a new plan to follow: Don't want to put any pressure on us but myself, AMK and Gavlor have been following this plan since Xmas.
By the end of April you should know how we got on and if it worked for us. So far though all three of us are pretty happy with our training though.

Cheers John. I'll be watching all your results with interest (not that I wouldn't be doing that anyway).

Anyway, I think all this HRM stuff is my own fault. I just twigged something this morning so I'm going to go out and do the HR Max test again and see if I'm right. I don't want to admit what it was as I'll make myself look very silly!

yaboya1 · 26-03-2014 02:16PM

Wednesday 26th March - 120 minutes Easy
14m @ 8:39p/m average (129bpm avg)

So, it tuns out there was nothing wrong with my perfectly good HRM which is working fine and producing exceptionally accurate readings. It was my brain that wasn't working! (but that's a story for another day :eek:). I really enjoyed this run. Even managed to get in a big loop of the Phoenix Park, which is rare for me but I do love to train in there. My plan was to keep the HR around the 130bpm mark for the two hours, which I managed quite well and I added a minute on at the end to get the fourteenth mile in. I'm delighted with the pace, as I would have expected to be moving a lot slower at that heart rate. I'll probably do the HR Max test again on Friday morning when my legs have freshened back up a bit.

Splits:

Mile 1 - 9:05
Mile 2 - 8:46
Mile 3 - 8:50
Mile 4 - 8:36
Mile 5 - 8:48
Mile 6 - 8:53
Mile 7 - 8:28
Mile 8 - 8:29
Mile 9 - 8:29
Mile 10 - 8:38
Mile 11 - 8:18
Mile 12 - 8:32
Mile 13 - 8:36
Mile 14 - 8:37

belcarra · 26-03-2014 02:46PM

yaboya1 wrote: »

So, it tuns out there was nothing wrong with my perfectly good HRM which is working fine and producing exceptionally accurate readings. It was my brain that wasn't working! (but that's a story for another day :eek:).

Go on, ya have to tell us what happened!

:pac:

Ososlo · 26-03-2014 02:56PM

belcarra wrote: »

Go on, ya have to tell us what happened!
:pac:

+1!

yaboya1 · 26-03-2014 02:57PM

belcarra wrote: »

Go on, ya have to tell us what happened!
:pac:

Two things.

1 - I've been wetting the wrong part of the strap. I didn't read the instructions properly and assumed the electrodes were the two points behind where you attach the clip.

2 - I've been stretching it over my head to put it on every time (which means it obviously won't be as tight as it should be) instead of putting it on like a belt. Because there's no locking device I didn't realise that it worked that way.

I only noticed both of these things after re-reading the instructions last night and today the results seem very accurate. I feel very stupid :pac::pac:

KielyUnusual · 26-03-2014 05:08PM

yaboya1 wrote: »

Two things.

1 - I've been wetting the wrong part of the strap. I didn't read the instructions properly and assumed the electrodes were the two points behind where you attach the clip.

2 - I've been stretching it over my head to put it on every time (which means it obviously won't be as tight as it should be) instead of putting it on like a belt. Because there's no locking device I didn't realise that it worked that way.

I only noticed both of these things after re-reading the instructions last night and today the results seem very accurate. I feel very stupid :pac::pac:

Yea, I made the same mistake in that I assumed the electrodes were directly behind the transmitter. Felt like a bit of an eejit when I figured it out too.

....you're not alone.;)

yaboya1 · 27-03-2014 12:16AM

No luck for me in the New York ballot.
Looks like it's Dublin this year. I'm due a second go here anyway :pac:

belcarra · 27-03-2014 12:40AM

Are you gonna race both Berlin and Dublin?
Think that's what I'll be doing...

yaboya1 · 27-03-2014 12:41AM

belcarra wrote: »

Are you gonna race both Berlin and Dublin?
Think that's what I'll be doing...

Yes. That's the plan.

yaboya1 · 27-03-2014 11:41AM

Thursday 27th March - 90 minutes Easy
11m @ 8:18p/m average (129bpm avg)

Decided to get another easy run in before work this morning, so hit the road as soon as I got out of bed. Heart rate was exactly the same as yesterday, but the pace was 21 seconds/mile quicker. Not something I'm complaining about

. Added on a minute at the end again to get the 11th mile in.

Splits:

Mile 1 - 9:21
Mile 2 - 7:58
Mile 3 - 8:10
Mile 4 - 8:09
Mile 5 - 8:18
Mile 6 - 8:15
Mile 7 - 8:19
Mile 8 - 8:03
Mile 9 - 8:06
Mile 10 - 8:13
Mile 11 - 8:25

yaboya1 · 28-03-2014 10:27PM

Friday 28th March - HADD HR Max Test (Take 2)

As I mentioned the other day, I wanted to try this test again now that I've figured out how to use my HRM properly. I followed the same routine as before (stretching, warm up, strides), but this time I had wet the HRM in the right places and was expecting more accurate results. I ran as fast as I possibly could for 800m, managed not to collapse in the following two minutes and used whatever energy I had left to run the remaining 400m flat out. I felt like vomiting when I had finished.

The pretty conclusive looking results are as follows:

800m - 2:18:34 (HR Max 175bpm) - http://connect.garmin.com/activity/469104892
400m - 1:10:23 (HR Max 175bpm) - http://connect.garmin.com/activity/469104885

Judging by this, it seems obvious (even to my uneducated eye) that my HR Max is 175bpm. This would make a lot of sense as I've been hitting 8:10 - 8:40 min/mile when training at 130bpm, having read that it can be difficult to go slow enough to maintain a HR as low as 140bpm. It also explains why I couldn't hit 180bpm in the 2400m test a few weeks ago.

The only thing that it doesn't explain is how I hit a max of 186bpm in the Marlay parkrun: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/456927823. Although I'm assuming that was another case of an inaccurate reading as I felt a lot worse tonight than I did after that race. I'll make sure to wear it in my next 5k so I can make some comparisons.

menoscemo · 28-03-2014 10:43PM

yaboya1 wrote: »

The only thing that it doesn't explain is how I hit a max of 186bpm in the Marlay parkrun: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/456927823. Although I'm assuming that was another case of an inaccurate reading as I felt a lot worse tonight than I did after that race. I'll make sure to wear it in my next 5k so I can make some comparisons.

You can clearly see that the 186 is a spike in marlay. A Proper HR reading should be almost exactly a straight line or smooth curve while holding an even effort. You were holding steady between 168-171 during minutes 6-13 where i'd guess the HR was correct. Some spikes again at the end.
Yeah i'd say go with 175 but I would guess you max might be a beat or two higher.

ger664 · 29-03-2014 12:10AM

I nearly vomitted just looking at those times.

barryoneill50 · 29-03-2014 07:58AM

belcarra wrote: »

Regarding a new plan to follow: Don't want to put any pressure on us but myself, AMK and Gavlor have been following this plan since Xmas.
By the end of April you should know how we got on and if it worked for us. So far though all three of us are pretty happy with our training though.

I'll be doing this plan myself for the longford marathon ....:)

yaboya1 · 29-03-2014 10:24AM

barryoneill50 wrote: »

I'll be doing this plan myself for the longford marathon ....:)

I think now that my readings are accurate I'll stick with this HADD stuff until the end of May at least. I've a couple more races planned and I need to repeat the 2400m test twice by then too. If there's obvious improvement I'll probably stick with it.
If not, I've had my head in the Daniels book the last few days and the 'Plan A' in there would definitely be my alternative.

DukeOfDromada · 29-03-2014 06:46PM

yaboya1 wrote: »

Judging by this, it seems obvious (even to my uneducated eye) that my HR Max is 175bpm.

Now that makes a lot more sense!

yaboya1 · 30-03-2014 06:59PM

Sunday 30th March - 20 miles Easy
20m @ 10:43p/m average (120bpm avg)

Any literature I've read on the HADD training suggests aerobic running for someone with my HR Max (175bpm) should be at 125bpm or lower. I saw today as an opportunity to get a long one in and the intention was to keep the HR below 125bpm. I managed to do this but it was really difficult, especially in the last eight miles where I had to slow to around 12min/mile to keep the heart rate down. The run itself is almost as long as I was on my feet in both Chicago & Berlin. I'm not sure I'm supposed to be running for this length of time in training, so in future I think I'll limit these to three hours. However, I'm pretty satisfied with it, as the other lads training this way told me that it would require patience and I definitely proved I have that today!

Splits:

Mile 1 - 9:30 (117bpm)
Mile 2 - 10:02 (119bpm)
Mile 3 - 10:34 (120bpm)
Mile 4 - 10:31 (119bpm)
Mile 5 - 10:24 (119bpm)
Mile 6 - 10:10 (120bpm)
Mile 7 - 10:23 (120bpm)
Mile 8 - 10:06 (118bpm)
Mile 9 - 10:06 (121bpm)
Mile 10 - 10:29 (121bpm)
Mile 11 - 10:43 (119bpm)
Mile 12 - 10:29 (121bpm)
Mile 13 - 10:10 (120bpm)
Mile 14 - 10:58 (121bpm)
Mile 15 - 10:57 (122bpm)
Mile 16 - 11:24 (122bpm)
Mile 17 - 11:19 (123bpm)
Mile 18 - 11:47 (123bpm)
Mile 19 - 12:26 (123bpm)
Mile 20 - 11:52 (124bpm)

Calvin Johnson · 30-03-2014 08:58PM

I don't understand why are you running so slowly?

Ososlo · 30-03-2014 09:15PM

Calvin Johnson wrote: »

I don't understand why are you running so slowly?

the whole idea is that he will get much faster at the same low effort level (hr) if he sticks with it. I took about 3 mins per mile off my easy pace (50 beats per min lower then max hr) over the period of about 9 months.

ecoli · 30-03-2014 09:37PM

Calvin Johnson wrote: »

I don't understand why are you running so slowly?

http://www.angio.net/personal/run/hadd.pdf

Here is the reasoning behind the approach.

It is a very solid long term approach without a doubt for improvement however there are a few issues

1) You need to have 100% faith in it. It takes someone very disciplined to take 1 step back to take 2 steps forward down the line. As such very few people actually manage to stick it out
2) Very hard to get comprehensive details regarding phase 2 of the training (which is a stark contrast regarding the sheer intensity levels makes Jack Daniels sessions seem prissy

Best of luck with the approach yaboya

ger664 · 30-03-2014 10:55PM

I may not be 100% correct in this but should it be the Average for the whole run not each mile? Your HR will go up (drift) due factors other then aerobic effort as you run. When I did this program my rule of thumb was ~1bpm increase/mile. I would then start low enough and hold the pace for the duration. So for 20 miles in your case I would have started with 115 BPM and the last mile would be 135 BPM. That was my take on it which may have been incorrect.
My LSR pace came from 10:00 -> 8:40 over a period of 5 months.

I thought the longest run was time based and capped at 2:30.

menoscemo · 31-03-2014 12:03AM

ger664 wrote: »

I may not be 100% correct in this but should it be the Average for the whole run not each mile? Your HR will go up (drift) due factors other then aerobic effort as you run. When I did this program my rule of thumb was ~1bpm increase/mile. I would then start low enough and hold the pace for the duration. So for 20 miles in your case I would have started with 115 BPM and the last mile would be 135 BPM. That was my take on it which may have been incorrect.

Not sure about this at all ger. I thought the whole point is that your body learns to hold the same pace without the HR moving up. The programme is designed to eliminate HR drift.

statss · 31-03-2014 12:57PM

I think I did read somewhere that the long runs should cycle by time : 2 hours, 2.15, 2.30, 2.45, 3 then back to 2 and start again. Can't recall the source to verify that off hand.

Those 10:XX miles look extremely slow for you but I wasn't too far off those paces myself when I started. I'm now around 8.30 or so.

How do you feel today? Sore?

yaboya1 · 31-03-2014 02:35PM

ger664 wrote: »

I may not be 100% correct in this but should it be the Average for the whole run not each mile? Your HR will go up (drift) due factors other then aerobic effort as you run. When I did this program my rule of thumb was ~1bpm increase/mile. I would then start low enough and hold the pace for the duration. So for 20 miles in your case I would have started with 115 BPM and the last mile would be 135 BPM. That was my take on it which may have been incorrect.
My LSR pace came from 10:00 -> 8:40 over a period of 5 months.

I thought the longest run was time based and capped at 2:30.

I took it up the same as menoscemo, in that you were supposed to keep the heart rate steady for the whole run and reduce the pace if necessary to do so. You're probably right about the LSR time, but I've nothing major planned this week and thought it would give me a good marker for the future to make comparisons against.

yaboya1 · 31-03-2014 02:39PM

statss wrote: »

I think I did read somewhere that the long runs should cycle by time : 2 hours, 2.15, 2.30, 2.45, 3 then back to 2 and start again. Can't recall the source to verify that off hand.

Those 10:XX miles look extremely slow for you but I wasn't too far off those paces myself when I started. I'm now around 8.30 or so.

How do you feel today? Sore?

Yeah, I understand that, but I've races coming up in the next three & six weeks, so I thought I'd go for a long one yesterday as I'm going to cut back to 2 hours & 1 hour 45mins for my long run the next two weekends with the 10 miler coming up on Easter Monday.
Funnily enough I'm not sore/tired at all today and was toying with the idea of repeating the 2400m test this evening, having already got my Easy paced run in this morning. I'll probably leave it until Wednesday though.

yaboya1 · 31-03-2014 02:54PM

Monday 31st March - 60 minutes Easy
6.52m @ 9:13p/m average (123bpm avg)

I'm not at all sore/tired today, which is surprising when you consider I spent more than three and a half hours on my feet yesterday. An hour of easy running was the plan again this morning with the same target aerobic heart rate. The miles are a little bit quicker than yesterday, probably due to the fact that the average HR is a few beats higher, but it's still well within the recommended limit.

Splits:

Mile 1 - 8:44 (122bpm)
Mile 2 - 9:14 (124bpm)
Mile 3 - 9:28 (124bpm)
Mile 4 - 9:34 (124bpm)
Mile 5 - 9:18 (123bpm)
Mile 6 - 9:09 (124bpm)
0.52 - 4:34 (125bpm)

I was toying with the idea of heading back out this evening to repeat the 2400m test at the levels required for my HR Max (120, 130, 140, 150 & 160). I'm not feeling any ill effects from yesterday, so I think I'd be fine. However it's probably best to err on the side of caution, so I'll probably leave it until Wednesday. The pace at 140, 150 & 160 should give me an indication if there's been any improvement since my original attempt four weeks ago. The two races I have coming up will also help gauge any progress, before I repeat the 2400m test again in the last week of May. After that I'll decide if I'm going to stick with this approach for Berlin.

Ferris B · 31-03-2014 04:45PM

yaboya1 wrote: »

Monday 31st March - 60 minutes Easy
6.52m @ 9:13p/m average (123bpm avg)

I'm not at all sore/tired today, which is surprising when you consider I spent more than three and a half hours on my feet yesterday. An hour of easy running was the plan again this morning with the same target aerobic heart rate. The miles are a little bit quicker than yesterday, probably due to the fact that the average HR is a few beats higher, but it's still well within the recommended limit.

Splits:

Mile 1 - 8:44 (122bpm)
Mile 2 - 9:14 (124bpm)
Mile 3 - 9:28 (124bpm)
Mile 4 - 9:34 (124bpm)
Mile 5 - 9:18 (123bpm)
Mile 6 - 9:09 (124bpm)
0.52 - 4:34 (125bpm)

I was toying with the idea of heading back out this evening to repeat the 2400m test at the levels required for my HR Max (120, 130, 140, 150 & 160). I'm not feeling any ill effects from yesterday, so I think I'd be fine. However it's probably best to err on the side of caution, so I'll probably leave it until Wednesday. The pace at 140, 150 & 160 should give me an indication if there's been any improvement since my original attempt four weeks ago. The two races I have coming up will also help gauge any progress, before I repeat the 2400m test again in the last week of May. After that I'll decide if I'm going to stick with this approach for Berlin.

I'm not sure I could do those slow miles (9:30 - 10.30) over a long run without getting completely pi$$ed off. Will be interesting to see how it works out for you over the next month.

menoscemo · 31-03-2014 04:51PM

I think doing the runs at 50 bpm below max HR is a bit if a one size fits all approach. For example someone with a max of 200 running at 150 is a world if difference to someone with a max of 160 running at 110. For me this is a flaw in the hadd system and easy running HR should be worked out as a %of max rather than 50 below max. Since you have a relatively low max HR you are affected negatively by this. It would probably be fine for you to do easy runs around 130 even 135 IMO

yaboya1 · 31-03-2014 05:24PM

Ferris B wrote: »

I'm not sure I could do those slow miles (9:30 - 10.30) over a long run without getting completely pi$$ed off. Will be interesting to see how it works out for you over the next month.

Yeah, it wasn't easy but I just stuck it out so I have something to compare to going forward.

A Slow Journey to Faster Times

Comments