Sunday, January 11, 2009

2nd Winter HADD Test

I was reading John's blog this week, and got a laugh how he feels he failed a HADD test this week. I know the feeling, but it is also like failing a blood test.. the results are not a performance test, they are a measure.

Well..... I aced mine today. In fact, I had such significant improvement, I thought something was not working correctly.

Here is the data today (1 mile warm up @ 6mph on flat dreadmill, 1.5 mile invevals)

Interval Speed (mph) Target HR Actual HR
1 6.5 125 120
2 7.1 135 132
3 7.7 145 142
4 8.5 155 154
5 9.1 165 159 (my max was only 162)

Check out my Hadd test from a year ago this month.
Interval time speed (MPH) avg hr

1 14:04 6.4 126
2 13:13 6.8 136
3 12:30 7.2 143
4 11:32 7.8 153
5 10:35 8.5 166

On every level I improved.... a lot.

Here is my test from a week before Chippewa 50k in April
(interval-speed-avg hr)

1 6.6 127
2 7.05 137
3 7.6 147
4 8.3 156
5 9.0 168

So I blew this one away as well, and I thought I was in pretty good shape then.

Here are my results from last month

Interval Speed (mph) Avg. heart rate
1 6.5 125
2 7 136
3 7.5 144
4 8.4 157
5 8.8 165

So in one month I improved on every level, especially the upper end.

What did I do?

Well, first let me tell you what I didn't do.
> I didn't follow a Runner's World training program designed to destroy the average runner
> I didn't push hard, I just ran a lot when I felt good, and backed off a bit when I did not.
> I didn't miss a whole lot of days.
> I didn't have the attitude of "I can eat whatever I want as long as I keep the mileage up"

Here is what I did do
> I started doing tempo runs again (I am still trying to figure out my zone)
> The long runs I did happened on mountains, climbing 2000 feet or so. I ran them instead of walking them.
> I backed off when I was tired.
> I continued to lose weight. (I am down to about 166 from 178-180)

The biggest difference I think is the absence of 12 pounds. More importantly, I have forced my body not to rely on any glycogen/carbs as fuel. I can now run for 3 hours (with some decent effort) and not feel a bit of the "glycogen crash".

There is no doubt in my mind that my body has not only switched to fat as its primary fuel source, but a very high percentage of fat burn compared to glycogen.

Also, most of my running in October and November was pretty low intensity.

So, in conclusion, the loss of fat, sticking to a plan, and being flexible pays off.

Maybe I just had a good day and nothing else.

5 comments:

MN Ultra Runner said...

Not just a good day. 'Good' days and 'bad' days are very overrated in my opinion...bad days mean bad training or bad nutrition.

You're in better shape, but I agree that the 12 lbs is the greatest factor. You're probably in 5+ minutes better marathon shape than you were before Chippewa. Looks like somebody is going to have a good spring season. What's with this volunteering at Chippewa?

Helen said...

"the results are not a performance test, they are a measure.

Well..... I aced mine today."

Right!

:)

Nice work through the winter months.

Runnin-From-The-Law said...

Very nice! Those are some great numbers. Glad whatever you are doing is paying off for you.

johnmaas said...

Impressive results!!
Yep, you aced it.
Get ready for some great running results in 2009!
It looks like you improved about 6bpm on every pace across the board in just one month!! Awesome!
I agree that the weight loss is a huge factor in this.
Keep up the fantastic training.
John

Carilyn said...

Good to hear from you, Matt! Can't wait to see what you have planned for the spring. Sounds like you are putting in some very smart training. Alas, I agree that the weight makes a big difference - I just hate that it does. It puts a huge dent in my cupcake routine :)

I will look for John. If he is as white as you say, he should be easy to spot in Phoenix, the land of the perpetual tan :)