"It's what you do next that counts"

menoscemo

Woddle wrote: »

Cheers for the offer meno, meant to get back to you. I'll pass on tomorrow as I'm going to have a few beers tonight with herself so no idea what time I'll get out tomorrow, can't ait to get back into a routine next week.

Well, we're not meeting until midday if that helps

Woddle

Sunday
I didn't get out till evening time and set off on my flattish 10 mile route with a full belly of food and the night before beers, this wasn't going to end well.
After about 3 miles I was in bad need of the toilet so I altered my route and made a bee-line for home, on the way I promised I'd do my business and get back out, turns out I ran the last 400m home in 1:21 and ten minutes later and still ahem in the house I decided against going back out.
6.1 miles at 9:10 pace, AHR 153

Plan for the week
Mon - 6 miles easy
Tues - 2m easy followed by 8m at 155
Wed - 6 miles easy
Thurs - 2m easy, 2 x 4m at 160 with 2 mins easy
Fri - 5 miles easy
Sat - 13 mile lsr
Sun - 3/4 miles easy

Objectives, complete a perfect week and stick to the zones
12 weeks to race day.

Woddle

This is by far becoming my favourite route
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/140341814
Only the first half mile and the last half mile am I to be seen, the rest is just perfect quietness.
Anyway
6.55 miles at 9:09 pace, AHR 150
I was kind of given the all clear to be up at 153 ish for afternoon type recovery runs but no need, heart rate well and truly back to where it should be. Felt good, now just have to start getting my lazy ass out of bed in the mornings.

Woddle

10.13 at 9:14 pace, AHR 157
http://connect.garmin.com/splits/140588131

I probably picked a silly route for this, lots of ups and downs, it was also very windy and I had great difficulty trying to stay within the correct zone but I wasn't too far away from it.
Aerobically this felt easy but my legs tell another story, they know it's been a few weeks since they've ran this far.
I also have 600 miles on my lunars so it really is time to get a new pair but can't see that happening for another 2 weeks.

Woddle

Very easy run this morning and legs needed it badly
5 miles at 10:05 pace, AHR 148

Woddle

Schedule for the week has changed slightly, an easy 5 is what was called for before Fridays fitness test followed by an all out 600m (hope to do it on the track with ecoli pacing)

So I planned to get up early this morning but the baby woke me even earlier at 3am, as I settled her I could hear a horrible wind outside (I'm sick of the wind) so I changed my plan and I'm glad I did as this evenings run was perfect apart from the annoying dogs.
5 miles at 9:20ish pace, AHR 154

Woddle

Having re read Kiwirunners brilliant thread
I've decided I need to be more flexible and I remember reading a Jay Johnson article a while back in running times that seemed good so a quick google gives me this, so I started with video 1 followed by some foam rolling tonight, a few of the exercises felt awkward which is to be expected.

Sprocket77

Woddle wrote: »

Schedule for the week has changed slightly, an easy 5 is what was called for before Fridays fitness test followed by an all out 600m (hope to do it on the track with ecoli pacing)

Why an all out 600m, seems an unusual distance to pick?

BeepBeep67

Woddle wrote: »

Having re read Kiwirunners brilliant thread
I've decided I need to be more flexible and I remember reading a Jay Johnson article a while back in running times that seemed good so a quick google gives me this, so I started with video 1 followed by some foam rolling tonight, a few of the exercises felt awkward which is to be expected.

Here's a nice set of exercises to pick from also: http://www.eastcoastphysio.ie/exercises.html

Woddle

Sprocket77 wrote: »

Why an all out 600m, seems an unusual distance to pick?

Hi sprocket
Coach wants a more recent max heart rate reading, the last ones that I have are from Sept 197 and Donore summer 5km 199, I've recorded 205 before though and as he put it the higher the reading the better it'll be for me on my easy runs I find 150 painfully slow and boring

Woddle

10.2ish miles which included a fitness test
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/141301230

Figures
2k at 140 in 13:39 (10:51 mile pace)
2k at 150 in 12:10 (9:47 mile pace)
2k at 160 in 10:40 (8:35 mile pace)
2k at 170 in 9:23 (7:33 mile pace)
2k at 180 in 8:22 (6:44 mile pace)

Conditions were perfect for this, I headed to marlay park as apparently our track doesn't open Friday evenings.
I ran up to the park as a warm up before taking 30 seconds standing recovery (not that I needed it for 140) and then I was off shuffling my way around for a heart rate of 140, this was painfully slow and unnatural.
I took 90 seconds standing recovery in between sets.
Overall it's not that hard of a test. 180 was obviously the hardest of the lot but still more than doable and I could have done a fair few more laps. The 5 mile time trial before xmas in 35:09 was for an AHR of 180 and that seems on par with todays result.
Not sure what to make of the figures, I'll leave that for Larry

Now for the big fail, the max HR test, I tried 3 times and failed 3 times, I gave up easily, when I had scheduled this workout for the track I had enlisted the help of ecoli. He was going to be my rabbit and I definitely needed one. I also think I'm lacking a 5th gear at the moment but it's not too much of a concern.

Mr Slow

Woddle wrote: »

1

Figures
2k at 140 in 13:39 (10:51 mile pace)
2k at 150 in 12:10 (9:47 mile pace)
2k at 160 in 10:40 (8:35 mile pace)
2k at 170 in 9:23 (7:33 mile pace)
2k at 180 in 8:22 (6:44 mile pace)

Would that represent current marathon pace or would you be looking at 165ish?

Woddle

Mr Slow wrote: »

Would that represent current marathon pace or would you be looking at 165ish?

When I ran my PB in Dublin I averaged 170 and for my last one I averaged 165 but I walked pretty much the second half, stopped for tea and a massage having ran the first 10 in 77 or sth like that.


I should probably add that the Hadd approach is all about raising that bar, so if in the past I ran for a AHR of 170 Hadds training is about making that 180.

Mr Slow

Woddle wrote: »

When I ran my PB in Dublin I averaged 170 and for my last one I averaged 165 but I walked pretty much the second half, stopped for tea and a massage having ran the first 10 in 77 or sth like that.

You should do that one in Hawaii where they have lunch along the way!

Woddle wrote: »

I should probably add that the Hadd approach is all about raising that bar, so if in the past I ran for a AHR of 170 Hadds training is about making that 180.

160?;)

Woddle

Mr Slow wrote: »

160?;)

Must re-read, you're like an uncle of mine, never wrong so I'll double check first before telling you you're ...

Mr Slow

Woddle wrote: »

Must re-read, you're like an uncle of mine, never wrong so I'll double check first before telling you you're ...

Meno's your uncle? :eek:

menoscemo

Mr Slow wrote: »

160?;)

Nope, Hadd would have woddle doing a Marathon at 180 avhr alright.

Woddle wrote: »

Must re-read, you're like an uncle of mine, never wrong so I'll double check first before telling you you're ...

I remember reading those sheets you left me and working out that he thinks I could do a marathon at 168 av Hr. I thought WTF My Av for Waterford half was 166 and my best in a marathon was 155 (both times I blew up I was running at a 160 Av HR.)

Mr Slow

menoscemo wrote: »

Nope, Hadd would have woddle doing a Marathon at 180 avhr alright.

Surely the idea is to run a previous marathon pace at a lower heart rate, ie Woddle's aim is to be able to run his previous pb at 160 and not 180?

menoscemo

Mr Slow wrote: »

Surely the idea is to run a previous marathon pace at a lower heart rate, ie Woddle's aim is to be able to run his previous pb at 160 and not 180?

Of course the idea is to run a faster pace at the same effort, but the point of Hadd's training is also that by the end you will be able to hold a higher Hr for a much longer duration.

I'm sure if you PM woddle he'll email you on the basics of the training plan, instead of assuming you know what it says . It is definitely an interesting read.

Woddle

Mr Slow wrote: »

Surely the idea is to run a previous marathon pace at a lower heart rate, ie Woddle's aim is to be able to run his previous pb at 160 and not 180?

I'll read it again and definitely get back to you. My initial thoughts are though that LT is what determines marathon pace (running slightly under it) and what I think Hadds approach is all about is pushing that LT up and in return you can then run for a higher heart rate effort.

I think what you're referring to is an example he gives. Sth like if your last marathon pace and effort was 160 bpm for 8 min miles that if you could train your body to run those 8 minute miles at 140 imagine what you could do then. I really must re-read or maybe Larry will come on and tell us cause I don't think I'm explaining it too well.

Here it is below if anyone else wants a read
http://www.angio.net/personal/run/hadd.pdf

Mr Slow

menoscemo wrote: »

I'm sure if you PM woddle he'll email you on the basics of the training plan, instead of assuming you know what it says . It is definitely an interesting read.

I've already read it smart ass, the whole idea in the subjects training was to raise his LT and obviously his fitness so that he could run his goal pace at 170 bpm

menoscemo

Mr Slow wrote: »

I've already read it smart ass, the whole idea in the subjects training was to raise his LT and obviously his fitness so that he could run his goal pace at 170 bpm

Touché.
I don't get why you would think Woddle would want to run a Marathon at 160bpm if he has already proven he can run one at 170bpm av. Or maybe the line of your question just confused me, or else, you're thinking one thing and we are thinking a different thing....

Mr Slow

Woddle wrote: »

I should probably add that the Hadd approach is all about raising that bar, so if in the past I ran for a AHR of 170 Hadds training is about making that 180.

menoscemo wrote: »

Touché.
I don't get why you would think Woddle would want to run a Marathon at 160bpm if he has already proven he can run one at 170bpm av. Or maybe the line of your question just confused me, or else, you're thinking one thing and we are thinking a different thing....

I think I picked up on the above, running a marathon at a higher heart rate than previously doesn't make a lot of sense to me, given the direct relationship between hr and lactate threshold levels. my understanding is that if you push out the level at which you accumulate lactate, your heart rate will be lower at that pace, MP is supposed to be just below your LT so running at a higher heart rate than that which is relative to LT? No Comprende!

BeepBeep67

Mr Slow wrote: »

I think I picked up on the above, running a marathon at a higher heart rate than previously doesn't make a lot of sense to me, given the direct relationship between hr and lactate threshold levels. my understanding is that if you push out the level at which you accumulate lactate, your heart rate will be lower at that pace, MP is supposed to be just below your LT so running at a higher heart rate than that which is relative to LT? No Comprende!

Was he trying hard enough the last time :rolleyes:, it's all relative and should be taken from current HR thresholds, not +/- to a previous race that was many moons ago.

Woddle

Here's Hadd telling you that marathon heart rate is max minus about 18 beats :eek:

If you have a GOOD relationship, and your HRmax is like Joe’s (193+) then your best
marathon race HR will be 175 ±. If you do the 2400m test, you should find that your pace at 170
HR is very close to best marathon pace (although HR in the race might be 175+).

He has also just said that Joe when starting couldn't even hold 170 for 35/40 mins

As noted in an earlier addendum (to Part IV), Joe found this initial test effort at 170 HR to be
okay for 8-10mins, but not something he wanted to keep up for too long, maybe 30-40 mins.

Maybe the confusion is coming from the fact that he says this

For reasons of cardiac drift, I had learned that the pace at 170 in the test would pretty accurately
reflect the running pace he would maintain for a marathon (assuming he was trained well) even
though in the race his HR would climb to 175-177. This because for 2400m he is not having heat
dispersal problems such as he will encounter if he keeps up such a pace for 2hrs+. So, assuming
proper training, the pace at 170 HR (for Joe) in the 2400m test equals pace in the marathon at
175-177 HR (in other words, his best marathon pace/effort).

menoscemo

Mr Slow wrote: »

I think I picked up on the above, running a marathon at a higher heart rate than previously doesn't make a lot of sense to me, given the direct relationship between hr and lactate threshold levels. my understanding is that if you push out the level at which you accumulate lactate, your heart rate will be lower at that pace, MP is supposed to be just below your LT so running at a higher heart rate than that which is relative to LT? No Comprende!

Well, if you are able to maintain a much Higher Heart Rate for a longer time then you will by definition run your marathon much faster. That's what we all want to do.

If the training raises the HR at which LT starts accumulating, then obvioulsy a HR which before was above LT would now be below LT. That's what Woddle means by 'raising the bar'.

I think you are not grasping the concept of Hadd's training. If Woddle has shown recently that he can run a Marathon with a 170 av HR it would be silly to try to run it with a lower HR. He would be selling himself well short.

I think I understand hadd's theory but I am taking it with a pinch of salt myself. I can never see myself running a marathon at 90% max HR. It just seems too much.

Woddle

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Was he trying hard enough the last time :rolleyes:, it's all relative and should be taken from current HR thresholds, not +/- to a previous race that was many moons ago.

Very true actually.

Woddle

menoscemo wrote: »

Well, if you are able to maintain a much Higher Heart Rate for a longer time then you will by definition run your marathon much faster. That's what we all want to do.

If the training raises the HR at which LT starts accumulating, then obvioulsy a HR which before was above LT would now be below LT. That's what Woddle means by 'raising the bar'.

This

Woddle

I have to go, my wife wants to watch the end of Downton abbey which means hooking laptop up to telly

RacoonQueen

Woddle wrote: »

I have to go, my wife wants to watch the end of Downton abbey which means hooking laptop up to telly

Tell her you're busy discussing important matters with the people who live in your computer.