Lydiard Training Advice; the Morning Run

Is 3-4 miles long enough to make a difference or is it not worth the time?

Yes, that's fine for a shake-out run or just adding a little extra mileage.

nicknick wrote:

I know that Lydiard recommended two major principles: all runs should be done at a steady state pace and the ideal peak mileage for base training is 100 mp weak.

I was wondering what Lydiard would say about achieving some of these 100 miles through morning runs of 3-4 miles. Any ideas? At what pace?

3-4 miles is fine. Typically make one run easier, one steadier on double days.

As far as "all runs should be at a steady state pace..." Lydiard had different efforts and distances throughout the week (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 effort were typical).

graphicalogic wrote:

nicknick wrote:

I know that Lydiard recommended two major principles: all runs should be done at a steady state pace and the ideal peak mileage for base training is 100 mp weak.

I was wondering what Lydiard would say about achieving some of these 100 miles through morning runs of 3-4 miles. Any ideas? At what pace?

3-4 miles is fine. Typically make one run easier, one steadier on double days.

As far as "all runs should be at a steady state pace..." Lydiard had different efforts and distances throughout the week (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 effort were typical).

im a 14:32 5k and 30:04 10k. whats my lydiard typical 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 efforts ?

Actually Lydiard wanted all runs easy until you get used to the mileage. He said biggest mistake in base is going too fast on lsd runs as that would ruin the base....

I'm amazed how often some kids can run doubles and triples in high school meets and still run so fast for so long, but perhaps they are hurting their longer range potential....

nicknick wrote:

I know that Lydiard recommended two major principles: all runs should be done at a steady state pace and the ideal peak mileage for base training is 100 mp weak.

I was wondering what Lydiard would say about achieving some of these 100 miles through morning runs of 3-4 miles. Any ideas? At what pace?

That's not what he said. He said 100 mpw in singles PLUS very easy morning runs / jogs.

Actually Lydiard wanted all runs easy until you get used to the mileage. He said biggest mistake in base is going too fast on lsd runs as that would ruin the base....

I'm amazed how often some kids can run doubles and triples in high school meets and still run so fast for so long, but perhaps they are hurting their longer range potential....

I don't have any pace tables in front of me. If you want, let me know and I'll try to get back with you tomorrow on some guesses for your fitness level. The way I understand them, and have been using them:

For base training... they are all "aerobic" efforts (sub marathon pace).

Effort-level:

1/4: easy

1/2: moderate

3/4: hard; but not time trial effort.

For me, it seems like the 1/2 effort matches up pretty closely with Daniels' easy pace, or slightly faster. The 3/4 effort, for a 60-minute run is like a long-tempo effort. Maybe slightly slower than marathon pace.

Hope that helps.

herer are the wrote:

That's not what he said. He said 100 mpw in singles PLUS very easy morning runs / jogs.

True, though you get some conflicting reports like when Snell says he personally counted every single step, including morning runs, to get 100 mpw.

graphicalogic wrote:

True, though you get some conflicting reports like when Snell says he personally counted every single step, including morning runs, to get 100 mpw.

And now that I think about it, at some point Lydiard changed from recommending mileage to time/duration. The book I have says a mature, healthy athlete should be able to reach 10-12 hours per week. I believe that did not include the morning supplemental jogging.

The 100mpw wasn't including the morning jogs (or warm-up/cool-down miles around the quicker running).

Typically a base week would look something like this:

Monday: 10m @ 1/2 (+wu and cd).

Tuesday: 15m @ 1/4.

Wednesday: 12m fartlek (+wu and cd).

Thursday: 18m @ 1/4.

Friday: 10m @ 3/4.

Saturday: 15m @ 1/4.

Sunday: 22m @ 1/4.

Morning runs would be jogs of 4-8m Monday-Saturday.

Efforts:

1/4 = date MP + ~50-60s

1/2 = date MP + ~20-35s

3/4 = ~date MP

missed wu and cd on the 3/4 run as well obviously.

+( wrote:

Actually Lydiard wanted all runs easy until you get used to the mileage. He said biggest mistake in base is going too fast on lsd runs as that would ruin the base....

I'm amazed how often some kids can run doubles and triples in high school meets and still run so fast for so long, but perhaps they are hurting their longer range potential....

Thanks. i still dont know whats the base pace i go too fast on lsd runs to my 5k and 10k pbs ? do you imagine ? whats my 1/4 1/3 and 1/2 pace ?

graphicalogic wrote:

I don't have any pace tables in front of me. If you want, let me know and I'll try to get back with you tomorrow on some guesses for your fitness level. The way I understand them, and have been using them:

For base training... they are all "aerobic" efforts (sub marathon pace).

Effort-level:

1/4: easy

1/2: moderate

3/4: hard; but not time trial effort.

For me, it seems like the 1/2 effort matches up pretty closely with Daniels' easy pace, or slightly faster. The 3/4 effort, for a 60-minute run is like a long-tempo effort. Maybe slightly slower than marathon pace.

Hope that helps.

i never did one marathon and i dont intend to do but i imgine that i would run 2:30. whats my 1/4 easy 1/2 moderate 3/4 hard efforts ?

The first thing to remember here is that Arthur ALWAYS said that his schedules were GUIDELINES and that you need to adapt them to your own needs and abilities.

That said, in his schedules, the 100 miles were run in the main sessions at your "best aerobic speed." He also recommended a second "supplemental" run at a slower pace. His guys seemed to cover between three and ten miles on these runs.

But that doesn't tell you what you should do. By the late 70s, Arthur had revised his schedules and advised people to run for time rather than distance. The main sessions in his base phase added up to about ten hours of running at your best aerobic pace and the supplemental sessions would last from twenty minutes to an hour.

The answers to your question have as much to do with you as with the actual schedules and paces. The ten hour a week schedule was intended for serious and fairly experienced athletes. I've seen schedules he wrote for "beginners" where the daily runs were 30-60 minutes long and the long run lasted 60-90 minutes. I asked him how he defined a "beginning" runner and he told me that you were a beginner until you'd run a marathon in less than 2:45. I never asked what times at other distances he equated to being a "beginner."

Lydiard NEVER assigned paces unless you were in a phase where you were running time trials or doing something similar so there's no answer to your "how fast" question. If you persisted in asking him about pace he'd tell you to "enjoy yourself" and that was in regard to the runs at "best aerobic speed." The supplemental runs were supposed to loosen you up for the main runs, so the pace on those would have been whatever speed allowed that to happen. You'd want to avoid doing them so hard that you couldn't run your main run comfortably and if you're running your main run in a way that forces "recovery days" on you frequently you're running too fast. Snell told me that if he found that he was struggling to get his next day's run in at his usual pace and distance he generally knew it was because he'd run too fast in the day or two before.

So you rarely think of specific paces in the Lydiard method. It's all done in terms of perceived effort. It was murder getting him to talk in terms of any specific pace which I think is one reason a lot of people today struggle with his ideas. I will tell you that once, when Barry Magee was coaching me and I was able to run marathons in just a shade under three hours, he made a passing reference to having me do a "quality" two hour run covering 21 kilometers.

If you really want to get specific numbers you could get a heart monitor. Or you could buy either one of the computerized programs that the Lydiard Foundation is selling or buy a copy of Keith Livingston's "Healthy, Intelligent, Training." Keith has taken Lydiard's ideas and expressed them in modern terms.

I got 3 interviews and 2 books where Lydiard says he despises heat rate monitors as training control or pace control. He didn´t approve that kind of thing.

Sorry but heart rate monitor is everything else except Lydiard training.

Don´t need to be an expert in logic to understand that train by perceived effort is inconsequent and impossible by heart rate monitor. The link from vague inaccurate imprecise Lydiard training as is “the best aerobic speed”, “training by feeling”, “1/4, 1/3 effort” or “run comfortable” to modern scientific accurate pace or based in sport physiology it´s one impossible task.

I got Keith Livingston book. What you say that is modern vision of Lydiard training is just the result of keith imagination, more than one rationale interpretation from what Lydiard did prescribe. It works to satisfied those who follow the Lydiard doctrine, but the distance from the Lydiard source and what he says is so big that the Lydiard foundation principles are lost. Besides if we do the exercise to forget the attempt to link Keith training prescribe with Lydiard training, the Keith training is nothing but common-sense training that you can get from hundred of similar books and several main stream training methods. Keith doesn´t add nothing new to what is today´s take for grant distance training.

To be recognized as a Lydiard follower it´s not enough to quote Lydiard or someone that expresses it is one “trustful “ identification with Lydiard. To be one Lydiard disciple it´s necessary to follow the Lydiard statements.

Lydiard did not like heart rate monitors but I had a conversation with him where he admitted they could be useful for keeping people from running too hard. Yes, he preferred that people learn to run by feel. But one way that he got his athletes to do that was by matching them with training partners of common ability who were good at running by feel. That's not always possible and he recognized that so he did come to a grudging acceptance of the monitor.

As to Keith's book, people like Lorraine Moller and Barry Magee will tell you that it offers an excellent explanation of the Lydiard system for modern runners who are used to more specific "physiological" language than Lydiard used. So we're left to choose to believe the opinions of athletes who worked with Lydiard or to believe the opinion of someone who has no particular knowledge of his method.

Efforts are with respect to a distance. Just as an 800m race at 100% effort is much faster than a semi-marathon race at 100% effort, the 1/4th (easy) effort for 800m, could be much faster than the marathon 7/8th effort (time trial). Race times don't map efforts neatly to paces like Daniel's tables.I think the best way to think of effort is as a synonym for trying. It's not meant to be a mathematical exercise, but an indication of how hard you should try (compared to racing that distance):8/8 effort - race3/4-7/8 effort - time trial, not quite full race effort, but a good try1/2 effort - half trying1/4 effort - between not trying and half trying0/4 effort - not tryingSorry it's so vague, but it is vague.In your case, you might decide, for longer distances, something like 7:00 mile (4:20 km) pace is "not trying", and work out the numbers from there, for different training distances.

mental power wrote:

im a 14:32 5k and 30:04 10k. whats my lydiard typical 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 efforts ?

Knowing that Lydiard despises the interest of Heart rate Monitors as training control and pace control but “pace feeling instead” but teaches the HRM as Lydiard pace control is everything except Lydiard training.

Effort controlled the heart pulse control, be by modern HR monitor or just by pulse take is something that the run distance science and distance training methodology starts to do systematically more than 50 years ago. However this kind of training control did not connection with any kind of Lydiard training prescribe.

When t Keith Livingston does is to use the HRM as pace control, he doesn´t take Lydiard training to modernity or that he does something new at the training methodology. He just take from other methodology source, and try to profit from long take for grant pace control by heart rate to justify Lydiard training with one tool – HRM in this case – that Lydiard did refuse and that the others methods did approved long ago.

Consequently, pace control by HRM as Livingston prescribes got nothing new, at some point is the deny of Lydiard training principles as Lydiard the man did state, and somehow is an appropriation of one tool of training control out of Lydiard training which the original trustful Lydiard ever refused.

What would be interesting was Keith Livingston or any Lydiard disciple to argue “why training by Lydiard pace feeling is more efficient that training by any pace control way of physiology tool control ” and not take the Lydiard and goes in the Lydiard path on and on without question or justify why Lydiard pace by feeling control is a superior way of training and why training pace control is inferior to “pace feeling”

The more I might say why Keith Livingston is a deception book the way doesn´t answer to the main premises of the Lydiard training that the real training modernity does refuses to accept.

Keith Livingston or everyone else from the Lydiard doctrine, would need to justify by modern training, modern physiology, in date science knowledge this kind of Lydiard statements, that are the main core of Lydiard training:

- Why “aerobics” is infinite unlimited enhance by training ? – as Lydiard said.

- Why “aerobic first” is more efficient that other season plan that builds up every kind of stimulus together but in different percents as far as the season goes from early season to late season ?

- Why the weekly regular long run applied to 800m to 10k runner specialist is better training and more effective that just mileage without long runs. What´s the efficiency of long runs for a 800-1500m runner ?

- Why less than 100miles – to all kind of runner specialists - is not the perfect Lydiard training, but however more than 100miles is damage training the way it leads almost certain to injury ?

- Why different distance events, that science knows it requires different percent of aerobic-anaerobic relationship, and different stimulus qualities, why Lydiard training is blind to that the way prescribes the same kind of aerobic training for different distance event specialists ?

Neither this crucial questions Keith approaches is his book. He simply follows the track of the Lydiard training doctrine. It´s true that he takes Lydiard training and do an attempt to teach some aspects of Lydiard training at the light of modern science and modern training methodology with the use of modern tools training that didn´t existed on sports science when Lydiard did formulate his training method.

But the crucial assumption that resumes the Lydiard doctrine “Lydiard the perfect training” or to take it a different way “Lydiard training is superior to other different distance training approach”, this idea of the superiority of the Lydiard method Keith Livingston or anyone else could justify by modern science. Generally it happens the opposite, it happens that more deeply the rocky distance training science goes (the serious one, with trustful conclusions) the conclusion is that lesser and lesser the Lydiard training is the “perfect” and rich and that Lydiard training is the superior way of distance training approach.