| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mdunn77
1540 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Oct 2009 : 1:53:45 PM
|
http://www.counterpartcoaching.com/hadd.pdf
Anyone read this before.. I've not finished it yet, but it seems to come to similar conclusions as the 70%WHR style of training.. A good read though
|
|
|
fishyweb
2310 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2009 : 2:36:42 PM
|
I've read some of his stuff (not sure whether it was this exact article), and found it very useful. I like his premise about comparing performance at one distance with another, with the 16 seconds/mile pace reduction when you double the distance.
---
Steve
http://www.runsaturday.com/athlete/fishyweb |
 |
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2009 : 4:00:19 PM
|
| not read it but bookmarked an article at home about it, will post link later. Just boght "Running with Lydiard" which I'm going to read right now but Hadd is another I want to read up on. |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
|
|
Heavyweight
1450 Posts |
Posted - 13 Oct 2009 : 10:05:16 PM
|
Interesting stuff, not sure I totally agree with the 16seconds rule though. It might work for the very quick boys, but I think it goes up in greater steps for the likes of me.
According to Macmillian predictions pace (for the longer distances) seems to drop as you double the distance by about the same number of seconds per mile as your 5K time is in minutes, so for me that is about 22 seconds. Otherwise based on my 10K time Hadd would have me completing a marathon in 3:22 (which if in the extremely unlikely event it did happen I really could not believe I wouldn't be significantly quicker at 10K) |
Edited by - Heavyweight on 13 Oct 2009 10:06:17 PM |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2009 : 08:03:01 AM
|
HW > Based on your 10k time and using Riegal's formula, you should be "capable" of a 1:38 half marathon and a 3:25 full marathon. The fact that you've not run these times is probably more an indication of your training being more specific to the shorter distances, or in the case of a marathon, a "get you round" type situation. It might also have something to do with the fact that you races so often and don't just focus on one event so to speak.
Maybe these forumlas are more accurate for quicker runners, but if you look at Wicked's PB's (44:48 10k, 1:37 HM, 3:42 FM) they also pretty much conform to the formulas?
Not read Hadd yet (other than the 16 second rule), but on reading Lydiard there was one point that struck me that seems to really support the base training theory - anaerobic capacity has a limit and you can only improve this so much, whereas aerobic capcity is limitless. So by building a large aerobic base, a relatively small amount of anaerobic training will be the icing on the top. But you can't build anaerobic capacity and then add aerobic as you'll lose the anaerobic conditioning. |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2009 : 09:27:31 AM
|
| okay, have now read the whole Hadd document + the link I posted and it's all very interesting. Would definately recommend others read the full lot. |
|
|
|
Heavyweight
1450 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2009 : 1:29:23 PM
|
Stephen - So for marathon training (for someone at my level) the greatest improvements are gained by only long & slow runs? Not bothering about all stuff schedules are usually filled with (fartleks, h/m races, hill work, mp runs, etc)?
In the article it mentioned that a marathon was 95% aerobic - Have you seen what this figure would be for a h/m? |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2009 : 2:16:24 PM
|
it doesn't suggest only long slow runs. It actually suggests running a fair bit of your mileage at just under marathon effort. Lydiard is actually more demanding, even though it is still all aerobic work in the conditioning phase.
The basis is that you spend the longest period of your training cycle exercising aerobically and only add anaerobic exercise for about 6 weeks prior to your taper. It is still recommended that you do some anaerobic work in this latter phase.
For most runners, a Half marathon is also predominantly aerobic. I can't recall having seen any specific numbers, but the HR for half marathons and full marathons shouldn't be all that different. HM is closer to lactate threshold though (and so there is a greater chance of the exercise becoming anaerobic). Having said that, it is also partly depend on pace. I can race a HM closer to my LT that you could to yours simply because a HM takes me less time.
You can't exercise anaerobically for very long. Any exercise more than an hour HAS to be aerobic, else you will be forced to slow.
Having read this, and Lydiard, I'm planning on doing only aerobic work from November through 'til the start of February. Only in February & March will I do intervals. However, I know someone who ran 2:31 in Berlin who didn't do any intervals at all. |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2009 : 2:24:20 PM
|
just to add a little about Lydiard... he refers in his book to running a minimum of 100 miles a week in this phase. What he actually means is 100 miles at more than 70% WHR with some recovery runs (in addition to the 100 miles) at less than 70% WHR. He seems to only really consider running to "count" if your HR is above 70% WHR. It's not about running slowly. Something else I read recently (think it was from Pfitzinger & Douglas) indicates that long runs should actually be run at about 75% WHR rather than being "long slow runs".
The link I posted is quite a nice summary of differences in approach between Hadd & Lydiard. |
Edited by - StephenPrice on 14 Oct 2009 2:35:18 PM |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2009 : 2:45:23 PM
|
oh, and he doesn't think you should ever have a day off running |
|
|
|
Heavyweight
1450 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 06:55:01 AM
|
| Lots to read & think about - thanks Stephen (and Matt & Steve) |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 07:54:22 AM
|
| indeed, I've got loads of stuff swimming around in my head just now and trying to get it out into a sensible schedule for London is proving difficult. |
|
|
|
Laura Foster
1143 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 6:48:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyweight
Stephen - So for marathon training (for someone at my level) the greatest improvements are gained by only long & slow runs? Not bothering about all stuff schedules are usually filled with (fartleks, h/m races, hill work, mp runs, etc)?
I've not read the articles (yet) but that isn't going to stop me joining in....
My fastest marathon was run off of only slower runs with no specific speed training / intervals (although a couple of fast races in the weeks before and during the taper). I'm planning to use the same technique but with longer distance for my marathon next year. |
|
|
|
mdunn77
1540 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 7:10:25 PM
|
| I'm of the same train of thought Laura - I need to get my endurance at a level where I can maintain my target pace for most (if not all) of a marathon. Only then can I start thinking about improving that pace. |
|
|
|
Laura Foster
1143 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 8:12:04 PM
|
| I've read the article now. Except for the fact of the distances run each week being ridiculous (for me - my 24 mpw average currently is a great joy to me), it certainly makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hadd
