Lydiard Training Foundation Training

Did you do the hill phase after the base phase?

So it sounds like the base phase went pretty well and the hill phase pretty much wrecked you. When I've looked at Lydiard's approach, the transition from base to hills has always seemed like a tricky one to me, just because you're switching gears so dramatically. (And in fact, while I've done something resembling a Lydiard base phase, I've never attempted the hill phase. I suspect I am not alone in that.)

If you want to do the Lydiard plan again, it seems like you would be well advised to be more cautious with the transition into the hill phase. I think that would be in keeping with Lydiard's broader philosophy of doing work that you are well prepared to do. Take the transition more gradually, take more easy days when you need them. In retrospect, I think you'll agree that not being able to complete the 90 minute runs at any pace should have been a sign that you needed to back off and regroup.

Alternatively, you could try a different approach to transitioning from base to sharpening. Try to understand what Lydiard was trying to accomplish with the hill phase. Try to figure out why it didn't work for you. Try to come up with something that you think could work better.

Or just try a different plan altogether. If you had a good experience with Hadd's approach, why not go back to it?

The first thing I think you should do, and I strongly recommend it, is to get in touch with Nobby or Lorraine and tell them the story you're telling here. The thing is, NOTHING works the same for everyone. There was a time I was getting advice from Arthur himself and when we got to the track phase everything went for me the way it did for you, I also added about four minutes to my 10 km time. I think Arthur was kind of annoyed at me for that but eventually we tossed out the intervals and went with high end aerobic runs in their place which worked much better for me. Everything you're writing here sounds to me like what you're doing is too hard for you, recommended heart rates and pace zones be damned. But Nobby and Lorraine would want to know when something they're doing isn't working and would want to help you figure it out.

I'm being serious in asking if you have had your blood checked for anemia including serum ferritin. What you described sounds a lot like you might have an issue other than training.

Pretty simple, from the beginning of your training you've been running everything too hard. You should never be completely wiped out after a workout. If you are then you should go straight into only doing easy jogging for a few weeks. If you couldn't do the full 90 minutes then you need to slow down so that you can do the 90 minutes. You shouldn't have reduced your aerobic runs by 30 seconds per mile. Just because you have the ability to run faster in training doesn't mean that you should. Also because of these mistakes you may now be over trained and anemic.

another runner wrote:

Pretty simple, from the beginning of your training you've been running everything too hard. You should never be completely wiped out after a workout. If you are then you should go straight into only doing easy jogging for a few weeks. If you couldn't do the full 90 minutes then you need to slow down so that you can do the 90 minutes. You shouldn't have reduced your aerobic runs by 30 seconds per mile. Just because you have the ability to run faster in training doesn't mean that you should. Also because of these mistakes you may now be over trained and anemic.

+1

Today's runners are mostly not equipped to follow Lydiard's methods because they rely too heavily on following a schedule. The main principle to follow is that you should always finish a run feeling like you could give more. The moment you stop listening to your body is the moment you stop following Lydiard.

Hi,

I did follow Lydiard training, and it goes really bad as well. But then after I do more research, and read people are talking then I realized than I had misunderstood Lydiard's idea.

You should tell us your 10k pr, and at what pace you are training at, and see where it goes wrong.

Heart rate training is mostly inaccurate, you should based on your feel.

I just did 9-mths of Lydiard base phase. After 5mths it really began to be looking good and I had an annual 10K race planned so wanted to see how that would go with no peaking. I did a parkrun the week before that went well but then the following week's training was setback from where it had been. My 10K ended up being exactly the same time as a 10K I'd run 5mths earlier (also with no peaking).

I continued on for the next four months with the aim of a half marathon but training was never quite as good as it had been just before the parkrun and I developed an achilles injury. I struggled round my 1/2M five mins slower than last year and a minute down on my PB.

All of which is not encouraging BUT I was aiming to do lots parkrun/10Ks this summer with some peaking to see if the base phase would pay off.

The hope I cling to is that in his book Lydiard says to the effect of "you won't see much improvement in the first year, you'll see a little in the 2nd but in the 3rd you'll improve leaps and bounds".

When I first followed Lydiard schedules in the late 1970's, I remember having similar struggles with having dead legs and running slower after the hill phase into the early anaerobic phase. Very discouraging.

In retrospect, I was trying too hard. Especially with bounding, I was trying to look like Snell in the last 300m of Tokyo.

In subsequent years, following the Lydiard admonition to finish each day's run "pleasantly tired", I had my biggest breakthroughs.

Then, the result was having the thought that I couldn't believe I was racing my fastest when it didn't seem like I was training that hard.

I would note this, from a few of the clinics I went to and lectures I have heard from pro and college coaches, very few high level coaches really do periodization like Lydiard wrote about in his books (NOTE: I admit that I only know about what is in his books; I am unfamiliar with what the Lydiard Foundation advises). They emphasize certain training stimuli during different parts of training, but it isn't one phase of all aerobic running, then a hill phase, or a sharpening phase like Lydiard advocated. The general modern outlook is that if you leave out a certain type of stimulus, you will get less fit in that area. Also, you need supporting speed and endurance training in order to assist with the specific training. When you leave out 5k pace or mile pace work, as well as tempo work, I think it makes it harder to do 10k race pace.

If you go weeks and months without doing 12 x 400s, when you resume doing them, it's gonna feel hard no matter how many miles you did in the prior months. Your body simply is not used to running that hard.

Don't get me wrong, Lydiard training will often produce results with many runners. Whether it is optimal training is a different story.

My response to this is always the same. The idea that you can't get away from one type of stimuls without losing fitness in that area is hogwash. The only way you lose fitness is if you completely stop training for an extended period. Lydiard training is good, hard training. It will not make you sharp right away, but during peak season you can work yourself into racing shapoe within 6-8 weeks. Then you can do all the 12 x 400 you want and yes, the first few sessions may not feel that great but the body comes around eventually.

auckland nz wrote:

My response to this is always the same. The idea that you can't get away from one type of stimuls without losing fitness in that area is hogwash. The only way you lose fitness is if you completely stop training for an extended period. Lydiard training is good, hard training. It will not make you sharp right away, but during peak season you can work yourself into racing shapoe within 6-8 weeks. Then you can do all the 12 x 400 you want and yes, the first few sessions may not feel that great but the body comes around eventually.

Hogwash? Probably not.

Pay attention to some interviews and anecdotes from Lydiard disciples. Rod Dixon mentioned when he felt stale or burned out during his racing season, he would just do long aerobic runs for a couple of weeks in order to feel right again.

There is a basic physiological reason for this.

Anaerobic training/racing inhibits or prevents aerobic development. In order for Dixon not to feel stale anymore, he had to do long aerobic runs in order to recharge his aerobic fitness. Why? Because he lost aerobic fitness during the sharpening and racing phase. Go several weeks without a sufficient amount of days training the aerobic system, you lose aerobic fitness. Obviously, Dixon did not stop training. But he did stop aerobic training.

And in reality, no distance runner can ignore aerobic fitness because it is a significant factor in all race models over the 800m.

And to be honest, why wait 6-8 weeks to be in racing shape? I can understand not getting a PR early in racing season, but why feel like or race like crap in the first place? Most runners, whether high school, college, or recreational racers, have multiple races spread over several months. The idea of having one giant peak doesn't really align with how people race today.

I'm not bashing aerobic training. On the contrary. It's also very important to go on very slow runs when you start to feel stale. I'm directing my comments at those who say that you have to include anaerobic training year-round or else you lose those adaptations.

Also, the one thing I think people overlook about Lydiard and his athletes in New Zealand was that it wasn't simply mileage, long runs, and specific phases for hill, anaerobic, and sharpening.

A lot of the running was done through hilly terrain (I am not daring to try spelling the mountain range in New Zealand where they trained). It's more than just bounding and hill running, but basic meat and potato mileage through hilly terrain.

One reason I point this out was that it seemed Lydiard often stated that his athletes had great kicks at the end of their races and he attributed this to the long runs and marathon-type mileage. But I remember seeing interviews with other pro runners who trained in Florida and copying Lydiard training. They noted that when they were through it all, their kicks and speed still sucked.

It's quite possible that real speed development was attained through the type of force generation needed to make repeated uphill climbs on a daily basis.

It's speculation, but I think the speculation cuts both ways.

auckland nz wrote:

I'm not bashing aerobic training. On the contrary. It's also very important to go on very slow runs when you start to feel stale. I'm directing my comments at those who say that you have to include anaerobic training year-round or else you lose those adaptations.

Well, I don't think anyone meant that you have to include anaerobic training year round. It's more about including different physical stimuli year-round. At least having your legs used to running various paces.

This might be the nuance where people are talking past one another.

In early summer of a xc base, I wouldn't bat an eye at giving my runners 12x200 at mile pace. But the recovery was 400m at an easy pace. The training effect is more aerobic as the athlete is basically fully recovered by the start of the next 200 and still accumulates 3 miles of easy running (plus whatever else mileage is being done that day). Conversely, change that to 16x200 at mile pace with 30 seconds rest, that is more of an anaerobic training effect. But I wouldn't do that workout until the end of the season.

In the middle, mile pace reps would be worked in between tempo intervals or after a tempo running but with ample recovery. Again, the desired training effect is more aerobic or lactate buffering, but it stays out of the anaerobic end.

And I admit, this is from my anecdotal observation, but I would see athletes transition easier into longer 3k/5k pace intervals when their legs were used to going fast as opposed to doing a base phase of mileage and tempo work. Or they could quickly transition into indoor track from xc despite not racing a mile in over 6 months.

I agree with you. It's just that some people think you need to be running V02 max workouts and lactate threshold workouts year-round.

12 x 200 with sufficient rest is not that anaerobic and I would advise doing that fairly often.

You did nine months of base training. The ENTIRE classic Lydiard cycle, base, hills, intervals, sharpening, and racing, only took six months. The base phase was 10-12 weeks so you more than tripled its length. Put another way, the guys Lydiard was coaching in his heyday would be wrapping up the base phase to a second training cycle while you're still on the base phase from your first.

I don't know if the overly long base phase is why you aren't getting much improvement or not. Arthur would have told you that you are not doing his training. You're doing one part of it.

HRE wrote:

You did nine months of base training. The ENTIRE classic Lydiard cycle, base, hills, intervals, sharpening, and racing, only took six months. The base phase was 10-12 weeks so you more than tripled its length.

I don't think Lydiard would have anything against a slightly longer base phase. On the contrary.

It is true that the base phase was at least 10-12 weeks, but didn't Lydiard say "for as long as possible" between two seasons?

One theory was that in order to reach peak performance, an athlete should build a base for several years, and add the anaerobic work when nearing the theoretical prime.

HRE why would Lydiard object to that sort of thing? If a runner needs more time to build up mileage why not allow for that? The base phase does not harm you in any way if you do it for 9 months or longer. You get stronger over time and your daily pace drops naturally. When the runner hits desired mileage (let’s suppose it’s 80...90...whatever...) then he or she can start anaerobic training and peak for a goal race about 10 weeks out.