Lydiard's "10 miles one day, and 20 miles the next"

If you are trying to follow Lydiard then you gotta throw out those doubles. Don't worry if they are "stuck" at 80 for a while. When they are ready for 100 mpw then they can run 100 mpw. There is no need to force it.

Mon: 10 easy

Tue: 8 easy / 10 moderate

Wed: 12 easy

Thu: 8 easy / 10 moderate

Fri: 12 easy

Sat: 10 hard

Sun: 20 easy

I didn't set out to do this workout....but ended up doing something very similar to what Lydiard found...i found the same results however. By running long one day (up to or even over 20) and going shorter the next day but faster - more like a steady state (8-12) miles...I was able to recovery and repeat this 2 day cycle.

I know many on this topic believe doubles are better than singles (and there are several threads on it in great detail) however, by breaking all this milage up into 2 runs per day - you'll notice your longest run is only going to be 12.5 miles (oops i just saw the 15 miler in there - that is much better). i think you have a pretty good plan, but would still like to see your Tues and Thursdays focus on 1 longer run. Since you are already doing doubles, i would not say stop doing them...but i would encourage you to take that one day of 10/10 and just do one longer run - try for 15+. and go shorter on Thursday's first run if you are going to go longer on the second.

The goal of training is not to log miles...It should be to build up your endurance first (which i believe is what Lydiard suggests).

I bumped my milage from 70-80 range to 100-115 by doing this - these are all singles for me:

Sun - 20+

Mon - 8-12 SS

Tues - 20+

Wed - 8-12 SS

THur 8-12

Fri - 20+

Sat - 8-12 SS

I did not start out at 20 however...i was probably doing more like 14, 14, 12 during the first week and built from there.

Being a high schooler you should be aware that you might not be able to do 3 long runs in a week. Most on here will tell you to only to 1 every week to 10 days and that is pretty much the guide i used for years and years until i decided to experiment...and i found that i can do 3 long runs per week (during my base phase) and have no trouble recovery from them - but i think you should know you can not be running these long runs fast at all. They should be very easy paced so that you are not sore the next day. you may be a little tired the next day, but if you are sore you ran them too fast. I started around 7:40 pace in the middle of summer...but they started to natuarally get faster as the weather cooled...now i run them close to 6:30-6:40 but the effort is still very easy. Anyway the actual pace is not important - going slow and feeling easy is...actaully the slower the better for me...i was actually happy when i saw how slow i could go because i had always run these too fast - by slowing down you are forcing your body to learn how to burn fat which if you have not been doing slower running will not be easy.

don't get obessed with hitting 100 - the real goal should be on just doing the work - the longs are the key intially..the in between days are likey to just be recovery for you for the most part. Once you have succussfully adapted to this volume you could begin to add a steady state here or there (but start out easy - the goal is to just hold a nice pace)

You aren't stuck at 80.

Heres how I would do it wrote:

Mon: 10 easy

Tue: 8 easy / 10 moderate

Wed: 12 easy

Thu: 8 easy / 10 moderate

Fri: 12 easy

Sat: 10 hard

Sun: 20 easy

or

Mon: 8 easy / 9 easy

Tue: 13 moderate

Wed: 8 easy / 9 easy

Thu: 13 moderate

Fri: 10 easy

Sat: 10 hard

Sun: 20 easy

Lydiard believed in running at least three days a week of a hour and half or more in one run. You get that with the two 13 mile runs and the one 20 mile run.

jerrry wrote:

I know many on this topic believe doubles are better than singles

Yes, pretty much all world class and other elite runners.

I've got to say, I'm amazed at the preoccupation with 100 miles per week for preps... I can remember that 50 miles per week back when I was in high school some 25 years ago was considered almost overtraining.

That said, I would personally not get caught up in the number and make sure you can run a staple run of about an hour per day and maybe 90 minutes on Sunday (or Saturday) before you embark on doubles. For that matter, get to the point where you are running a 10 mile run each and every day, with a maximun run of 15 miles on the weekend.

I believe you will get more out of your mileage that way, particularly if it isn't causing you to compromise your sleep and academics (the old frat boy networks aren't going to be useful to land good jobs in the future anymore; you're going to need to obtain some tangible skills and it starts in high school) and it will prepare you for the next step in college.

I know there are those on here who would disagree, but, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't get caught up in the "100-mile week" as a prepster, but, rather, the "1000-mile" summer or winter. Something akin to this, and do it for 12 weeks with some strides, core work, and some progression style running, some of it on hilly terrain:

M: 4/8

T: 4/8

W: 4/8

R: 4/8

F: 4/8

S: 4/8 or just 8

S: 12-15

letsjog? wrote:

Lydiard: "Now, I found out years ago, when I was running 100 miles a week in training, if I alternated the distances, say, instead of 15 miles every day, run 10 miles one day and 20 miles the next, I got better results."

How does this plan for the conditioning phase look for a high schooler (senior)?

Mon: 5/5

Tue: 10/10

Wed: 5/5

Thu: 7.5/12.5

Fri: 5/5

Sat: 5/15

Sun: 5/5

Total: 100

This is "10 miles on day, and 20 miles the next". Basically the 20 day shifts a bit. A lot of doubles, I know, but I'm currently stuck at 80mpw, so I want to try something new.

Anyone?

I wouldn't suggest 100MPW for high schooler unless he/she is very fit. I would try 100km with the same distribution as in his 100MPW schedule EXCEPT for Sunday. I'd go 2-hours on weekend. Time-based training, however, is much better than trying to get mileage.

Always try to do doubles with 3~4 miles easy jogging in the morning WITHOUT dividing the day's quota--that's not the purpose of doubles; it's always ADD ON TO IT.

Sagarin wrote:

I've got to say, I'm amazed at the preoccupation with 100 miles per week for preps... I can remember that 50 miles per week back when I was in high school some 25 years ago was considered almost overtraining.

2009 - 25 = 1984. Precisely the moment when high school distance running started a long decline. Go figure?

Malmo,

I know you are a believer in doubles and relatively high mileage. Would you find a plan with longer runs better than just 7/7 or 7/8 (or some slight variation) every day if the weekly mileage is the same?

Also, since you place a lot of emphasis on doubles being better than singles: what is your opinion about triples, assuming one has time for them?

You misunderstood what Lydiard was trying to get out of that statement. It didn't mean that they literally did 10-20-10-20 it just meant that doing 1 single type of repetitive mileage didn't give the same benefit as mixing it up on a day by day basis. Lydiard also was a big believer in single big mileage. Morning runs were used more as a way to shake out the legs and I'm not even sure he included that into his "100 mile weeks).

A more Lydiard kind of example of the "100 mile week" (even though Lydiard understood that athletes need to be developed to that point and can't just start there which I seriously hope you are not considering) would be:

M: 10

T: 15

W: 12

R: 18

F: 10

S: 22

S: 15

Another thing to keep in mind is that Lydiard athletes did this mileage at pretty good intensity. Those 10 mile days may have only been 10 miles compared to the rest of the week but those were run at near sub-threshold pace and they could finish them by the end of a base cycle in close to 52 minutes. Also, a lot of neuromuscular work was included all throughout the year because it was necessary for them to maintain there speed so that way when it actually came time to do sharpening work they could actually improve their speed skills instead of having to spend so much time re-adapting to speed.

With all that mileage your longest run is only 15 miles? Don't get hung up on #'s and just progress naturally. Craig Virgin who won World XC twice back in 80 and 81 rarely hit 100 miles. He was a 85-95 guy.

malmo wrote:

2009 - 25 = 1984. Precisely the moment when high school distance running started a long decline. Go figure?

Hence the comment: "I know there are those on here who would disagree, but, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't get caught up in the "100-mile week" as a prepster, but, rather, the "1000-mile" summer or winter."

I don't think it necessary for a prep runner to run 100 miles per week, at least not consistently, unless the goal is to peak in high school and perhaps earn a scholarship. More often than not, that is the case with the 100+ mile types. Always fortunate exceptions, of which you were one...

crazykyle26 wrote:

Also, a lot of neuromuscular work was included all throughout the year because it was necessary for them to maintain there speed so that way when it actually came time to do sharpening work they could actually improve their speed skills instead of having to spend so much time re-adapting to speed.

Hmmm; I don't recall this from any of Lydiard's books. Would you provide some examples?

I was in high school from 1983 to 1987 and no one in either of my schools ran over forty miles per week. We had no idea that we were the beginning of nearly two decades of low mileage runners. All I knew about our school recordholders from the 1970s was that they had lived at altitude in Peru for the first fifteen years of their lives. Coach neglected to mention the 80-100 mile weeks and I had no idea that was what I should have been doing. Every now and then, off frequent track workouts of 200m-600m intervals, hilly runs, and no tempos, someone, maybe in shape from soccer, would run 4:20, but the rest of us would be in the high 4:40s or even more than twenty seconds slower.

Osaka Lecture page 16~17

http://lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/OSAKALECTURE.pdf

Not directly on point, but Lorraine Moeller has a piece on Lydiard's ideas on the Running Times website.

Does anyone else think the interpretation of Lydiard is similar to the Bible? Some people say you should take his statements literally, others say he is just trying to show the importance of a certain principle.

It's to show a priciple. He always said that his schedules were just guidelines and you needed to adapt the ideas to your own circumstances.