Hadd test

Dan Stumpus said:

Pretty close to a linear relationship of HR to speed, as Donovan found.

R^2 = 0.9975, which is a pretty good fit.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

Pretty close to a linear relationship of HR to speed, as Donovan found.

R^2 = 0.9975, which is a pretty good fit.

I've always heard it to be a linear relationship, up to the so-called
deflection point that occurs in about 50% of runners (from another thread).
Aside from that deflection point, what would it show were there a deviation
from the linear relationship? I don't recall Hadd mentioning this.

It seemed Hadd was using this test to relate pace to HR to percieved effort
in order to better set training levels for 1) normal easy running, and 2)
marathon effort sub-LT running. He did this by reading the results with a
filter of his past coaching experience, and previous coaching knowledge
about the specific althlete he was testing.

While the Hadd coaching example is interesting, it's so specific that it's
difficult to apply it to another person's training except in a general way.
The results speak of the method's effectiveness (if you can call it a
method), and perhaps some improvement can be had from taking some of the
ideas generally, though it really underscores what a good coach can do to
help someone improve.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

Quoted message said:

R^2 = 0.9975, which is a pretty good fit.

I've always heard it to be a linear relationship, up to the so-called
deflection point that occurs in about 50% of runners (from another thread).
Aside from that deflection point, what would it show were there a deviation
from the linear relationship? I don't recall Hadd mentioning this.

Eventually, you'll inevitably get a deflection from a linear relationship. All
you need to do to observe it is to run at a pace where the projected line would
exceed your max heart rate. You probably will not be able to hold that pace for
very long, but it should be slower than an all out sprint. In my case, I get
about 0.7mph for every 10bpm, so I'd be maxed out somewhere between 11 and
11.3mph -- slower than my 3k race pace.

Now in terms of what the deflection shows, I think it just shows that there's
a point beyond which aerobic metabolism doesn't contribute a whole lot. I'd
guess that if the deflection occurs early, it could suggest a low LT.

I admit that I still don't completely understand why you wouldn't see some sort
of deflection, especially when the model fit is so good on the other points that
even a very slight detection would be visible.

Quoted message said:

It seemed Hadd was using this test to relate pace to HR to percieved effort
in order to better set training levels for 1) normal easy running, and 2)
marathon effort sub-LT running. He did this by reading the results with a
filter of his past coaching experience, and previous coaching knowledge
about the specific althlete he was testing.

I think a major component of this method was also to use a submax workout to
test fitness, and in particular, to test submax fitness levels.

Quoted message said:

While the Hadd coaching example is interesting, it's so specific that it's
difficult to apply it to another person's training except in a general way.

Well, it's difficult to apply any method to an anonymous runner's training
except in a general way. Still, I think most of the Hadd article amounts to
saying, "run slower". I don't really agree with the idea (Lydiard, etc) that
you should spend a few years doing base only before doing speed work.

Quoted message said:

The results speak of the method's effectiveness (if you can call it a
method),

Well, the results were pretty questionable actually. The problem is that he
didn't really demonstrate IMO that the method was able to do anything besides
improve performance on the test metric. He didn't succesfully demonstrate that
his test was a good predictor of race performance. Obviously the test does
reflect some sort of fitness that has some relationship to running, but the
extent to which that translates to faster race times isn't satisfactorily
addressed by that article.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Well, it's difficult to apply any method to an anonymous runner's training
except in a general way. Still, I think most of the Hadd article amounts to
saying, "run slower". I don't really agree with the idea (Lydiard, etc) that
you should spend a few years doing base only before doing speed work.

"Years"? Was that a slip (and should´ve read "months"😉 or a polemical
exaggeration? Adopting the Hadd or the Lydiard method may mean "doing
base only" (in your expression) for quite some time, but I don´t think
you can stretch "for twelve weeks or as long as possible) into more
than what fits in a year and the entire program for "Joe" from getting
restarted to finishing the marathon in a PB was about six months.

Besides, the Hadd article amounts to "run longer", too:-) (That is to
say, the 70min LT runs are longer than what you can find in most
programs.)

Quoted message said:

Well, the results were pretty questionable actually. The problem is that he
didn't really demonstrate IMO that the method was able to do anything besides
improve performance on the test metric. He didn't succesfully demonstratethat
his test was a good predictor of race performance. Obviously the test does
reflect some sort of fitness that has some relationship to running, but the
extent to which that translates to faster race times isn't satisfactorily
addressed by that article.

I thought the result was the marathon PB:-) In any case, IMHO the test
isn´t really a part of the training method - you don´t have to carry
it out in order to train according to the Hadd approach - and you
shouldn´t take him to task for failing to demonstrate something which
he didn´t set out to do.

Anders

anders said:

Quoted message said:

Well, it's difficult to apply any method to an anonymous runner's training
except in a general way. Still, I think most of the Hadd article amounts to
saying, "run slower". I don't really agree with the idea (Lydiard, etc) that
you should spend a few years doing base only before doing speed work.

"Years"? Was that a slip (and should´ve read "months"😉 or a polemical
exaggeration? Adopting the Hadd or the Lydiard method may mean "doing
base only" (in your expression) for quite some time, but I don´t think
you can stretch "for twelve weeks or as long as possible) into more
than what fits in a year and the entire program for "Joe" from getting
restarted to finishing the marathon in a PB was about six months.

Lydiard often talked about the Kenyans spending *years* building their base
while they are young.

Hadd also seems to be pushing the viewpoint that you shouldn't even touch
speed work until you are well adapted to 80mpw or so.

Quoted message said:

I thought the result was the marathon PB:-) In any case, IMHO the test

I missed that part, but it's a really long article. Could you point me to it ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

anders said:

Quoted message said:

Well, it's difficult to apply any method to an anonymous runner's

training

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

except in a general way. Still, I think most of the Hadd article amounts

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

saying, "run slower". I don't really agree with the idea (Lydiard, etc)

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you should spend a few years doing base only before doing speed work.

"Years"? Was that a slip (and should´ve read "months"😉 or a polemical
exaggeration? Adopting the Hadd or the Lydiard method may mean "doing
base only" (in your expression) for quite some time, but I don´t think
you can stretch "for twelve weeks or as long as possible) into more
than what fits in a year and the entire program for "Joe" from getting
restarted to finishing the marathon in a PB was about six months.

Lydiard often talked about the Kenyans spending *years* building their base
while they are young.

Hadd also seems to be pushing the viewpoint that you shouldn't even touch
speed work until you are well adapted to 80mpw or so.

One of the points I got from reading Hadd was that for true base building,
you run slow enough to really focus on slow-twitch muscles, and that such
training will reap great benefits later when adding speed. It seems to me
you could apply this no matter how many mpw you're doing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought the result was the marathon PB:-) In any case, IMHO the test

Exactly, real results which surprized Joe, the case study runner.

Quoted message said:

I missed that part, but it's a really long article. Could you point me to

it ?

I tried to find it again the other day, but too long to re-read everything.
It's in there somewhere.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Hadd also seems to be pushing the viewpoint that you shouldn't even touch
speed work until you are well adapted to 80mpw or so.

Quite the inverse: do not even go near 80mpw unless you are well adapted to
speed work :-P

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

anders said:

I thought the result was the marathon PB:-) In any case, IMHO the test

I missed that part, but it's a really long article. Could you point me to
it ?

This is from Part IV of the hadd thread.

Six weeks after this last test (and less than 20 weeks after beginning
organised training), Joe entered a marathon with instructions just to sit
quiet with the 2.20-low group and stop at halfway. He ran 71.xx.

Managing to finish less than 2 mins off his all-time half marathon PR after
only 20 weeks organised training, Joe began to see how his sub-2.25 dream
could still happen.
<End quote>

The thread charts 20 weeks of "Joe's" progress and
there is in fact no mention of how he went in the marathon...

Anthony.

Anthony said:

The thread charts 20 weeks of "Joe's" progress and
there is in fact no mention of how he went in the marathon...

I stand corrected! It´s amazing how the mind can complete a story:-)

Anders

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Lydiard often talked about the Kenyans spending *years* building their base
while they are young.

Now that is IMHO an entirely different kettle of tea - I don´t think
Lydiard ever meant to suggest that older runners should spend years
trying to recapture the African childhood they never had:-)

Quoted message said:

Hadd also seems to be pushing the viewpoint that you shouldn't even touch
speed work until you are well adapted to 80mpw or so.

IIRC (which I now realize is a big if) he can accept a mileage as low
as 60mpw, and although he insists on continuing with the program until
his "marathon pace" is sustainable (without significant cardiac drift)
for 10m, he also talks about 20 weeks as a suitable duration the first
time(s) around and 10-12 weeks later on.

(And he does introduce the "leg speed" 200m/200m sessions as early as
W9 - but granted that´s not really speed work.)

Quoted message said:

I missed that part, but it's a really long article. Could you point me toit ?

As Anthony pointed out, my memory played yet another trick on me and in
fact Hadd leaves the story open - but somehow I just cannot accept a
less than happy ending:-)

Anders

How would this work for someone who has a much lower heartrate?
Mine is usually about 36 in the morning and was once only 30. When
sitting at rest during the day, it is typically about 44. The highest
it's ever been measured was when I had gone full effort on an Airdyne
for 12 minutes and it was 87. I've never had as hard a workout as that
when running, so I doubt my pulse ever went higher. This was at a
pre-Olympic exercise equipment exhibition and about 200 jocks and
coaches were watching, so I was showing off to
my maximum.

Steve McDonald

"Steve McDonald" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How would this work for someone who has a much lower heartrate?
Mine is usually about 36 in the morning and was once only 30. When
sitting at rest during the day, it is typically about 44. The highest
it's ever been measured was when I had gone full effort on an Airdyne
for 12 minutes and it was 87. I've never had as hard a workout as that
when running, so I doubt my pulse ever went higher. This was at a
pre-Olympic exercise equipment exhibition and about 200 jocks and
coaches were watching, so I was showing off to
my maximum.

Steve McDonald

Steve - I have a similar resting heartrate to you, but unless I'm mistaken
that high rate you got would have been 187 and not 87...

Anthony.

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

Hadd also seems to be pushing the viewpoint that you shouldn't even
touch speed work until you are well adapted to 80mpw or so.
----------------------------------------------------------

From my own experience and observations, the opposite seems true.
I believe you need to develop footspeed as early in life as possible,
because it's much harder to do so, after you're older. If you build a
base of good sprinting speed in your youth, it's easier to slowly add
endurance and longer distance capabilities, as you mature. If you can
sprint faster, it's easier to run at a certain pace, as it is a lower
percentage of your top speed.

Of course, you must have some inborn endurance strength, to carry
out this approach
successfully. Those with mostly fast-twitch muscle cells, won't become
great distance runners, regardless of their type of training. However,
a third kind of cell can be shifted between fast and slow-twitch
functions, with extensive training in either sprinting or distance.

If you're an adult and not in good running shape, obviously you
have to build overall conditioning by using a slow pace, for some time.
Only after you've built up some running ability, can you safely do hard
sprints, without risking injuries.

Champion distance runners, at the speeds they go nowadays, are
usually the ones who can sprint the fastest, as well as have great
endurance. If all a runner did was put in long miles for years, before
any sprint training was done, it would probably be too late or at least
more difficult to gain much sprinting speed. I'd advise young runners
to spend their early teen years training as though they were 800 meter
racers, if they wanted to be their best at distances when they were
older.

When I started training on a daily basis at age 4, I did both
sprinting and distance running and have never stopped doing either. I
learned that it was best to do nothing but sprint on one day and run
only for distance on alternate days. Only when I was 14 and getting
some adult physical maturity, did I find it profitable to run distance
every day. After that, I sprint-trained only about twice a week and
usually ran distance 6 days a week, doing both on a few days. Some
other people might not do well with this method, but I know many would
find it beneficial. The trick is, to have been lucky enough to get
inspired to run at an early age and learn how to do it systematically.
I learned something else early on: Not to train yourself into the ground
with too many miles, especially when you're young. Faster, fewer,
higher-quality miles build you more than slogging along, just to post
higher numbers on your weekly chart. If you need more exercise, some
cross-training in another activity may be best.

Steve McDonald

Steve McDonald said:

From my own experience and observations, the opposite seems true.
I believe you need to develop footspeed as early in life as possible,
because it's much harder to do so, after you're older. If you build a
base of good sprinting speed in your youth, it's easier to slowly add
endurance and longer distance capabilities, as you mature. If you can

Good point. In fact most top distance runners who competed in high school
actually ran much shorter distances at that time. For example, Alan Culpepper
was an 800m/1500m runner.

Quoted message said:

sprint faster, it's easier to run at a certain pace, as it is a lower
percentage of your top speed.

Well, no. It's not that simple. Better running economy translates to both faster
sprint speed *and* better performance. Running economy is the underlying
mechanism driving both. Most of the factors driving sprint speed are not going
to improve endurance. Motor learning is more important for young runners than
building mitochondria or aerobic capacity (these both can be deferred)

Quoted message said:

Of course, you must have some inborn endurance strength, to carry
out this approach
successfully.

But even then, bulk up or do a lot of strength oriented exercise, and your
sprint speed will improve, while distance performance drops.

Quoted message said:

Those with mostly fast-twitch muscle cells, won't become
great distance runners, regardless of their type of training. However,
a third kind of cell can be shifted between fast and slow-twitch
functions, with extensive training in either sprinting or distance.

If you're an adult and not in good running shape, obviously you
have to build overall conditioning by using a slow pace, for some time.
Only after you've built up some running ability, can you safely do hard
sprints, without risking injuries.

Champion distance runners, at the speeds they go nowadays, are
usually the ones who can sprint the fastest, as well as have great
endurance.

If that were true, the fastest marathoners would also be the fastest 100m
runners, or at least the 800m and 1500m runners (800m and 1500m have very good
aerobic fitness, and are faster than marathoners, so why isn't El G winning
marathons ? How many marathons will he win in his lifetime ?).

The reason the top 10k specialists are better sprinters than slower 10k
specialists has little to do with causal links between sprinting. If you
were to plot the pace one can run as a function of time, you would get a
different profile of each runner.

Now if you try to fit these curves, for the broad class of "distance runners",
you already get a very good fit with one parameter -- "level of fitness", like
the Daniels vdot, which doesn't account for individual variability in profile.
In particular, a miler will have a curve that crosses a marathoners curve (that
is why Culpepper and Meb aren't the fastest milers in the US)

But one could account for individual variability by including a decay rate in
the model. Now I suspect that specialists for any given distance will have
similar decay rates, because decay rate will be what determines which event
one specialises in.

In other words, the reason that the fastest 10k runners are the ones who can
sprint the fastest, is that these runners all have similar aerobic profiles
(parallel curves), so if you rank order any part of the curve, you also get a
rank orering on all other parts of the curve. It has nothing to do with causal
links between sprinting and distance performance -- it's just an artifact of
the fact that the guys in any given even have similar performance profiles.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/