Physiology questions about Lydiard training.

tromala wrote:

Nice documentary. And there are some more about Ladoumegue and Jazy also.

You mentioned some examples of great runners doing hill training from the beginning of the training season, to near the competitive phase in some cases. All of them were middle distance runners. What about long distance runners, and specially marathoners? Should they use hills from the begining of training for 10 Kms first, and once in 10 Kms shape start the specific marathon training without hills?

Everybody, every distance event can include hills including the marathon runner.

However, as in my opinion the marathon requires the classic 10-12 weeks of specific preparation, the hills training shall be done out of this marathon preparation period.

Antonio,Don't get me wrong. I am trying to get a practical perspective. Of course, I know you are not Hadd, and that Joe was not your athlete, and there is more than one possible approach. I recall your "let's do a 10K first" answer about what you would have done for Joe, and I guess it's not a bad answer. But I was more wondering the "why's" of Hadd's approach with Joe. I even know you don't want to speak for Hadd, but I'm wondering, what circumstances and details led Hadd to exclude AFAP and anaerobic training in favor of "aerobic first" training? Why did Hadd think "aerobic first" was the right approach for Joe, but in general, it's a "stupidity"? If I have, or if I am, a runner in similar "2 year out of shape" situation, what do I have to consider before structuring a training plan?Joe was a proven 2:27 runner (twice five years earlier), who at 35, and was out of shape for 2 years, wanted to get in shape one last time for a 2:25 marathon, before it's too late. From an existing training of 20 mpw, Joe took 4 weeks to get up to 50mpw, then 19 weeks of "aerobic first" training and no AFAP training, Joe successfully ran a half-marathon at marathon pace, at which point Hadd concluded: "Was his aerobic training finished at that point? Far from it. I figured we were only halfway there." That looks to me like at least 23 weeks, but maybe up to 42 weeks of "aerobic first" training (he didn't detail the second half).The perspective I'm trying to gain is, when should I consider this exceptional "Hadd" approach of pushing up the lactate threshold from underneath, before the "real training" begins, and when should I consider a "Cabral" approach, of parsimonious application of AFAP training starting from the very first few weeks? Is it an ST versus FT thing? Was it Joe's event (marathon) and target? Should I assess "resistance ratio"? Maybe both approaches are good, and it is simply a matter of personal preference of the coach?Unfortunately, I can no longer ask Hadd. I don't pretend you have the answer, but just the same, that's my question.

The answer to your question why Joe training is as we know, only Hadd should answer. Besides I have no attorney to answer for him, the rational and intellectual exercise you can do is read and try to understand why he did to Joe what he did and why I do with one runner what I do, KNOWING THAT WE SHARE SEVERAL SIMILAR TRAINING PRINCIPLES, namely the one of 2 types of runners based in different muscular characteristics for each distance event.

With all the respect, what you try to do it´s a PREVERSE logic I can´t stand and answer with that your logic of question. Let´s think that you are serious in your question. However to put my training face to face with another one, as to put Lydiard versus Coe, Canova versus Lydiard, all this is a perverse debate. Like to put my training versus Hadd.

I don´t see things as that. You see, i never knew Joe, you don´t know if Joe is an imaginary case….that is really.

There, don´t insist in that your perverse logic. I refuse to answer your question the way you take it to the debate, that mainly is Antonio versus Hadd.

My training analysis is this one.

1/Or i comment on real cases. Or if are several cases, I comment one by one direct to training methodology

Let´s see i can figure out

(going up, from the detail, the single aspect to the large overview)

First comes the INDIVIDUAL training program or the REAL CASE > goes to >training APPLY > goes to > (distance) training METHODOLOGY >goes to > the several branches of training METHODOLGY that are the background of training: HISTORY and CULTURE of distance training, PHYSIOLOGY, BIOSCIENCE, PHYSICS, etc etc.

But I can sustain the reverse logic, from the large training overview to the training single case of detail)

First comes the several branches of training METHODOLGY that are the background of training: HISTORY and CULTURE of distance training, PHYSIOLOGY, BIOSCIENCE, PHYSICS, etc etc. > goes to > goes to > (distance) training METHODOLOGY >goes to > the INDIVIDUAL training program or the REAL CASE

Therefore I will put the debate (and your question) a different way.

1/what Hadd did advices to Joe ? Why he did, what he did. This you know. You agree or you don´t ? I, António I don´t. I don´t advice aerobic first.

2/What hypothetic António would advice to a Joe. I did answer to that question earlier. I would have suggest him to start with one training plan (phase 1) which the target is MIDDLE-DISTANCE COMPETITIONS instead of just training for the marathon right ahead (5-10k road or track , cross, and the kind of training that I guess that promotes aerobic enhance while uses anaerobic training as well, and that fits on that middle distance events, AND ONLY AFTER THAT PHASE reached, it´s when we would think about the marathon preparation (12 weeks eventually). If Joe did runner refuses to accept this my proposal (middle distance training and middle distance competitions first and marathon later) and he insists in the marathon first, I would say I´m not competent to coach him, and I refuse to coach him.

Finally one idea. In the universe of existence, there are many things similar, but no one equal precisely. The actual state of science says so. On that conclusion is perverse to relate one thing the way you want to relate, the attempt to fit (or to relate or to discuss, or to comment one training on other. Each training might be be comment BY itself.

TRAINING apllicance

I want to ask you one question and one demand.

Is there anything that you read on mine and Hadd´s thread “2 kinds of runners“ that take you to the conclusion that on that subject I or Hadd we agree with an approach that is “aerobic first” seen as one early period of the season periodisation that we refuse intervals, that we refuse anything except aerobic training ?

But I want an answer or a quote straight from out thread “2 kind of runners”. If you see something there on that thread please let me know. I will thank you.

I ask it because since I remember, I did send all my posts on that thread previously to John and John did send all his ones, the way we agree previously to the both our post contain one each other before post it on LetRunCom board.

Otherwise, all the rest of Hadd writing and Hadd´s ideas I might agree or I don´t, as I always stress it´s not necessary and not desirable that we both did agree about the same training precisely to respect one each other, to got interest and admiration for what the other does. What would be wrong is to deny something without rationale (blindly), or because we follow one dogma, one paradigm, that we follow something due to radicalism or reason of the heart, due to some personal or collective interest that is opportunism.

If you don´t find anything o that 2 kind thread, let´s pass, let´s move ahead or lets´s continue the debate without identify me with something from other person or ask me about something the other does or did.

Antonio, that's OK, we can drop Hadd and Joe.

I'm not trying to frame this as Antonio versus Hadd (Phase 1), or link your training with his. Maybe my question is too awkward, and looking for a short list of factors is too simplistic.

To answer your question, nothing in "2 kinds of runners" leads me to suggest you (or Hadd) ever agreed with the idea of "aerobic first". And for sure, I know from many other threads, this is something you don't agree with.

Regarding Hadd, outside this single instance specifically linked to Joe, actually I think I never once read Hadd's opinion about periodicity, or including any kind of intervals in an aerobic phase. I only have your representation that he would recommend interval training in the aerobic phase (I believe you) and that he also didn't always agree with "aerobic first" (I believe you).

I don't think I linked you with Hadd's training, but in any case, we can drop it and move on.

Some Quotes from John Hadd email send for me. I hope that youi wilol be able to get a better understand about Hadd distance training approach.

(…) On the 2 kinds of runners Cabral showed that there is more than one single way to get achieve this high aerobic conditioning. (…)

(…) Hi Antonio,

I like intervals, in fact, I love intervals... What I call a "FT" guy (more Mamede than Lopes who I would refer to as "ST"), so he can make lots of lactate and tend to have to work very hard to improve on his distance work. I designed Phase I based on my own knowledge and experience of what is best just for FT-types.

Long long years ago I always used to experiment.

I used to love workouts of many laps of 100m fast, jog the 100m bends, but that was too easy because the recovery was too long. I experimented with 50m fast and 50m float and found it could really hammer on that ones and reach very high lactate values. Intervals of 150m hard with 250 float some could run all day because he could recover in the 250m jog...(...)

(...) I coached runners that loved running 400s, and could run 20 x 400m at 3k pace and over the years they could cut the rest down from 60 secs to 35 secs standstill.... but after this workout they would be bent over on the knees and have lactate coming out of the eyes! They would be so completely wasted I would forget the way home! LOL! (…)

(…) But... as you note, on their own intervals are not enough and they must be built within a careful structure. I keep FT types away from them for a long time until they have mastered some serious long rep LT work at 92% and 95% of 5k pace. Then I get them doing 400s, 600s and 800s at 3k pace. I tend to keep the recovery short for FT's so they don't be tempted to build too much lactate (because they cannot build lactate in the race anyway). With a longer rec, they will run them harder and build more lactate; so we are building up an energy system beyond how much we can use it in the race. So with short rec, an FT has to use their aerobic system more. (…)

(…) ST's I give longer recovery, because their anaerobic systems are so poor they need time to recover between reps. We need to make their anaerobic systems more powerful.... so sometimes I give them fast all-out reps with long recovery. (…)

(...) I want to communicate with athletes directly. True advice only works if it directly answers personal problems. Generic answers, or general guidelines are worse than useless. We believe in going from the specific to the general. So we will begin by answering that most important question; telling you what to do tomorrow. And then the next day, and the day after. And from there, over time, you will learn the general guidelines that are directly applicable to you (and no-one else). (…)

(…)And when I see intervals at 10k pace, I know for best results I MUST see short and active recovery. If it is done with standstill recovery, I know from experience, this will not work well (esp for FT) as an LTP session. With standstill recovery I know the anaerobic system will recover — like magic — in very short time and will play too big a part in the next rep, and the next one and so on. So there will be too much lactate in each rep for good lactate management.(…)

(…) One point we are going to have to get into is this, and it is vitally important. Just because someone is ST, it does not mean he/she must do ONLY LT/LTP type training. Absolutely not!

We can take this slow and see what we both think, but here is my opinion/experience.

I told you my wife is very-ST. Best performance always at marathon 2:36. BUT, the best thing I ever did when I met her was to make her into the best 800m runner she could be!

I did not say, oh, you are a marathon runner and let's go and do LT runs all the time. No! I said first you have a big weakness. When we fix your weakness, then we can go and do the more easy work and fix your strength (LT runs).

So, I expect you to tell me that Lopes did faster training than tempo runs. How fast I don't know, but with Mrs H we like to see 800-1k reps at 3-5 pace with lots of recovery (to allow anaerobic capacity to recover because this is weak in ST). When we can run 4 x 1200m at quicker than 5k pace (for ST) then all other shape comes easy, even for a marathon. If we have good 4x1200m shape, it is very easy to get in race shape for any distance.

If we do NOT have 4x1200 (or 5x1000m or 6x800) shape then ALL OTHER RACE PERFORMANCES WILL BE POOR!

So, and I prove this to myself with Mrs H, if you are ST and you want to race your best marathon, first you have to train to run 800m as fast as possible (for 2:15-2:18 marathon maybe 2:05 for 800m. For 2:32-2:35 marathon maybe 2:15 for 800m). THEN you have to train to run 3000m as fast as possible (and still keep near-800m shape). THEN marathon training is very easy.

BUT for ST on marathon raceday must be in near-3000m top shape at the same time! (obviously not for FT). (…)

Which comes first, night or day?

That's interesting, that he designed Phase 1 "just for FT-types". That never came across to me before, but I guess it makes sense.

Maybe this quote explains why he kept Joe away from intervals for so long: "I keep FT types away from (interval training) for a long time until they have mastered some serious long rep LT work..."

Anyway thanks for the quotes.

Yes he did.

Do you want to know one secret ? Joe was himself, that after a mis of training, tries a new come back to run another marathon. However the Joe performance is imagination, as well as the 3200 LT tests.

John Hadd himself was a marathon runner. However he was a FT runner, and he said that one LT run for him got to be done in intervals of recovery or he will get more lactate than the threshold zone soon, because he was weak in aerobics. Sometimes we tend to think that the FT is the fast one/short distance events and the ST is the slow/long distance events. This is not linear.

And dont YOU NEVER forget that Joe is training for the marathon event what means a strong need of aerobic runs.

Sorry.Its me. I just click the post message without complete the identification.

António Cbaral wrote:

Yes he did.

Do you want to know one secret ? Joe was himself, that after a mis of training, tries a new come back to run another marathon. However the Joe performance is imagination, as well as the 3200 LT tests.

John Hadd himself was a marathon runner. However he was a FT runner, and he said that one LT run for him got to be done in intervals of recovery or he will get more lactate than the threshold zone soon, because he was weak in aerobics. Sometimes we tend to think that the FT is the fast one/short distance events and the ST is the slow/long distance events. This is not linear.

And dont YOU NEVER forget that Joe is training for the marathon event what means a strong need of aerobic runs.

But I guess Mamede never did anything like an extended aerobic only period to strengthen his resistance.

M. Hugo, are there any traditions in France about where the good runners are found? Do French runners train on hills much? (Indeed, Antonio, how about Portuguese?)

Antonio, is there a big tradition of hill training in Portugal?

Across the channel in the UK, a lot of our great runners came from places with hills. Not quite as big as in New Zealand, but still - Sheffield, Newcastle - hard not to run up a hill every day. There used to be a big tradition of hill training in winter. But I fear that we are doing this less because it is less 'measurable'/'sciencey'.

This is a complete aside, but when I visit Paris I am a very big fan of the Parc des Buttes de Chaumont. Beautiful park, and really, really good for hill reps. But I never saw as many other runners there as I do on the Bois de Vincennes, Bois be Boulogne or the canal.

Way way back ther´s a french 3000m steeple several times champion de France and european steeple champion named Jean-Paul Villain that he used to train hills intervals and fartlek during his cross winter season before summer track one.

From portugal Rui Silva, is one that did hill during the winter base built up phase. But he did hills as intervals, hill up faster, going hill down jog or walk. 15X300m up hill by instance.

Another runner that did many hill intervals, once every week winter, spring summer or autumn it was Eduardo Henriques. Each monday it was for sure. one easy run in the morning and in the evening after one warm up one session of hill intervals. Eduardo did win several times the portuguese national cross, and national road champ, once he did 9th in world half marathon champ and he did win over some good kenyans in cross runs. Another one that did use hill intervals frequently it was Paulo Guerra, once 3rd in the world cross country champ and once 4th and did win 4 times the european cross champ. Paulo did win many international cross runs, including one win over Paul Tergat

Paulo Guerra 3rd in the 1999 WCCChamp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJoauKAovX0

Paulo Guerra wins over Paul Tergat, Jon Brown and many others (commented in english)

Cross Italica 1997-SEVILLE - 1st part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAiwWky_XXA

Cross Italica 1997-SEVILLE - 2nd part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oESH_QFQQms

Cross Italica 1997-SEVILLE - final part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPYfOLIGXs

rekrunner wrote:

But I guess Mamede never did anything like an extended aerobic only period to strengthen his resistance.

Yes, he didn´t. Otherwise every one of his non-competitive period trough the seasons, he did mix aerobic and anaerobic, from easy runs to trace pace and faster than race pace. That´s how he did, and remember that he starts to run at 14 years old, he was a good 400m junior runner, then a Olympic runner in 800m and 1500m and very good in 5000m and undefeated in 5000m in the equivalent what´s actual the Golden league during 2 seasons. In 10000m he did the european record 3 times and world record once and was the first runner in the world to run 10 times sub 28:00, He was a good cross man, as well. Once he was 3rd in the World Cross Country champs, he did more portuguese national champs that Carlos Lopes and he did 11 presences in the WCCchamps. he did broke all portuguese records from 600m to 10000m, some of those records he did broke several times.

But you are right, being a FT he didn´t aerobic first. His 12 years long career in the international world class and related training, seon on and on, endured him to possess one very good aerobic system that way – aerobics every day combined with anaerobic once in a while, every season on, every period on. The idea that the rich distance training approach is training the aerobic system independently, apart from the anaerobic , and think that is the way to enhance the aerobic condition efficiently is imply a mistake and a misunderstand.

I cannot comment about the French runners of the past but today nearly all of the top French runners are of North African origin. This is partly because there is a strong tradition of distance running in this cultural group and partly because, for the very top guys, distance running provides a means of making a living or eventually getting a job in France. More recently there are some Kenyan and Ethiopian runners following the same path.

If you want to see many of the good/top guys from the Paris region training on hills, you should visit the parc de Marly le Roi on a Sunday morning. It is about a half-hour train journey from Paris.

Antonio and Victor, thanks very much.

I'm glad to hear that a weekly hill session in base training is so well regarded.

Regarding the ST/FT, do you find that ST types generally need to run more mileage than FT types? Or does it simply depend on the runner?

Lydiard's philosophy is shit when applies to middle distance. Notions such as the one that "anaerobic" training "sands down" the "aerobic" system are sheer bullshit, made up out of thin air, pulled out of his ass, from nothing. It's a mistake to even think about physiology. Train in a way that is specific to your event and the physiology will take care of itself.

FT wrote:

Regarding the ST/FT, do you find that ST types generally need to run more mileage than FT types? Or does it simply depend on the runner?

Both needs mileage, because aerobic is very important.

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. Shorter intervals with shorter recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. Longer intervals with long recovery

See the classic example of Snell versus Sebastian Coe. Snell (FT) did more mileage but slow pace that Coe.

Snell did shorter intervals type with active jog recovery (sometimes) what means that the intervals might be long but the active recovery turn that to incomplete recovery, and aerobic intervals consequently. Snell wasn´t a leader, wasn´t a front runner, but as FT he waits for the last part of the run to win.

Coe (a ST runner related to the 800m-1500m) got a training schedule with less mileage but fast intensity pace, with winter anaerobic training (6-8x800m hilly in covered in about 2min with 2min recovery) 5K fast LT runs. and mile and 1000m intervals.

Of course this is condensed schedule resume you might understand the pattern of difference between a typical ST and FT.