Sprint Training Beneficial?

no amount of rest is getting 10-12x100m anywhere close to top speed. that's "strides" that are faster than necessary, and with overly long rest. will urge you to read the 5x60 thread posted above for true max v work.

For me I would do something like:

M: Easy + 4-6 x 100m sprints (full rest)

T: 12 x 400 w/ 1:30 rest OR 6 x 800 w/ 1:30 rest (LT intervals - volume subject to change over time)

W: Easy + 4-5 x 150m sprints (full rest)

Th: 4-5 mile Tempo Run (this is my ideal length, not too short or long , ie 3 or 6)

- Done at Daniels M pace, the ONLY thing I ever base upon a pace

F: Easy + 3-4 x 200m sprints (full rest)

S: Long Run (done Easy) + 4-6 x 100m sprints (full recovery)

LT intervals - anaerobic lactate - done very hard but not pace specific -- they should hurt!

Tempo + Easy - aerobic - Tempo is pace specific or else I would go too hard

100, 150, or 200s after easy running - anaerobic alactate

Worth noting that for LT intervals I like 400s and 800s. I personally don't like anything over 800 because you can't do them fast enough. For MD though, even LD, they should be sufficient.

Lydiard disagreed. To be safe, I'd go with 400s or 800s. Nothing shorter or longer. See below.

Or better yet:

Turn all of the easy runs into steady runs. Lydiard believed these were quicker at facilitating aerobic benefits like enzymes, increased capillaries. With that said, eliminate the tempo since the steady runs are more "uptempo" runs.

Replace the Thursday Tempo with LT intervals, maybe rotating 800s and 1ks out each week. Still have all the components. It's kind of like Lydiard without periodization.

smartboy77

fastboy77 wrote:

Lydiard disagreed. To be safe, I'd go with 400s or 800s. Nothing shorter or longer. See below.

Uhhh, I replied to a post of you saying 200 repeats were a good lactate workout. Kinda sounds like you're disagreeing with yourself.

fastboy77 wrote:

Or better yet:

Turn all of the easy runs into steady runs. Lydiard believed these were quicker at facilitating aerobic benefits like enzymes, increased capillaries. With that said, eliminate the tempo since the steady runs are more "uptempo" runs.

Replace the Thursday Tempo with LT intervals, maybe rotating 800s and 1ks out each week. Still have all the components. It's kind of like Lydiard without periodization.

Also the whole point of an easy run is to recover, and you will lose recovery with a hard day pretty much every. You gain fitness from hard workouts, not running a little hard every day. Easy days easy, hard days hard. Easy runs maintain fitness, and improve recovery. I dont know of lydiard replacing tempos with steady state runs. Sure a steady state run will aquire more fitness than an easy run, bu t theres a reason pretty much every great runner varies intensity

Lol. Do you have a strava? I wanna see a legend in action. Sham 69 the running legend!!!!!

I do, but I never upload my runs there. I have a training log thread that I update weekly.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10346872

Lydiard said repeats of at least 220 yd were necessary to lower the blood pH (or in other words produce H+ and lactate ions). Of course, this is not the Gospel so many other running coaches may disagree. But if you're a Lydiard guy, perhaps you will take his word for it and do a 220 yd repeat session. Lydiard classified these reps in his anaerobic phase, and stated the purposed was to become comfortable under "oxygen debt" aka lactate buildup. Hence, he believed the 220s were anaerobic lactate intervals. This is the heart of our current discussion, whether or not 220s are long enough to produce lactate.

I never said I disagreed. I said that I don't just do 200s, but also 400s and 800s, and hell even 600s for that matter.

Lydiard also stated that the main components that ALL mid d and long d runners should have is 1) AEROBIC THRESHOLD 2) ANAEROBIC DEVELOPMENT 3) SPEED (what he meant in common term is anaerobic alactate work like short sprints) 4) COORDINATION. I typically have all three components in a week, so that takes care of the coordination. I know he talks about periodization but I just toss them all together.

True. SS and Easy are both under the aerobic umbrella that Lydiard speaks of. He just says it takes longer to get the benefits by going slower. However, I personally believe this may be one of the flaws in his pretty intricately designed training system -- the fact that he ran hard almost every day. Perhaps the trade off of being able to recover is worth waiting a tad longer for the aerobic benefits he spoke of.

That's a dense week. I'm sure some people can handle that, but I'd be worried about frying my kid's CNS if we were alternating workouts with days that have true sprints.

Just my two cents, but I think you can afford to leave off some of the sprints after a run and have a true easy day or at least change them to more toned down strides (3k-5k effort).

Are you a Lydiard's guy that believes in periodization? Or do you believe aerobic capacity, anaerobic development, and speed can all be developed at once? I like Lydiard but im not a fan on the periodization but I like that breakdown that he has just squeezed into one week.

Feel like lots of confused and/or young people in this thread with all the terminology, but a week for me ideally looks like this:

MO: easy + speed or hills

TU: faster workout

WE: easy

TH: midweek LR

FR: slower workout

SA: recovery

SU: long run

I incorporate strides throughout the week before workouts that are pretty rough in terms of actual pace and how many -- I treat it like a drill, run with great form at speed, and do as many as I need to feel a pep in the step. Sometimes will add some accels and a lap "tempo" depending on the workout.

The actual "speed" component of it has more of a developmental aspect to it. I alternate flat speed and hill sprints every other week. The hill work is mostly for strength and form and helps tone up the lower legs so I'm not tearing my legs up when I put spikes on. The flat sprints essentially start out as glorified strides, 100s, 150s, 200s. Probably in the range of 3K - 800 pace. You want the form and the strength there before you start throwing max effort stuff there, so these will be "slow" early on.

But then you want to start capitalizing on those incremental increases in efficiency and start cutting down the effort. Maybe the last 100 repeat is at 400 pace. Start working on the alactic system by tossing in some 30m flys w/ full rest, then 50s w/ standing starts. 200 cutdowns later on to hit all the systems.

Some may disagree, but I'm of the school of thought that you want to fully develop your speed for the year before doing the whole "learn to run fast while tired" thing. For the most part, you want all of those components maxed out in a really conservative manner before you start to put them together. But eventually, you might close some workouts with sprint work to simulate race conditions.

fastboy77 wrote:

Are you a Lydiard's guy that believes in periodization? Or do you believe aerobic capacity, anaerobic development, and speed can all be developed at once? I like Lydiard but im not a fan on the periodization but I like that breakdown that he has just squeezed into one week.

I definitely wouldn't identify much with Lydiard beyond thinking that most American runners (High School and College) still aren't running enough volume. In my experience most HS programs don't ask their kids to run more than 30 miles a week for girls or 40 a week for boys even if they're clearly great athletes. I ran 40 a week in HS and was fortunate that I was talented. Kids who can't rely on talent need to improve some other way, it's not by training like the kids that can get away with doing less and still being good.

I also wouldn't say those three things should always be developed at the same time, though usually we're playing with a lot of them in varying doses.

Aerobic capacity and speed development play well with one another in a "base phase." Yes, they're largely different fiber types and mechanisms, but they don't have problems coexisting in the same training phases.

Anaerobic development and Speed Development are also fine together.

Aerobic capacity and anaerobic development are more at odds with one another. We're getting in the weeds with terminology on "aerobic capacity" but generally aerobic changes don't play as nicely with anaerobic stimulus. This is the part where Lydiard comes in again. I wouldn't have anything challenging for the anaerobic system while we're building up; there's no need at that time. When we get to the middle of the season we'll be ramping up on anaerobic work gradually and our aerobic work takes a step up in quality with workouts over the longer mileage or less structured sessions.

That said, I have seen some programs take the "develop everything" approach too far for my tastes. You can fit almost any workout into any phase of training with some tweaks.

Early/off season: 12x200m at mile pace w/ 400m jog

Mid-season: 20x200m at mile pace w/ 200m jog

late season: 2 sets 8x200m at mile pace w/ 30s rest (6 min. between sets)

Not necessarily workouts I would do, but someone coaches see 200's and think that they're going to peak too soon. Others would look at this and call each of them pretty tame considering how short 200m really is for a moderately fast rep. They can all have their place and you can just as easily say, "why bother with the first workout over having regular strides and a solid tempo run instead?"

That was a few tangents, but let me know if there's any other way I can help out.

I like this, it's similar to how we set things up, just some days swapped around.

Were you referring to the schedule I posted above?

I thought you stated though that you shouldn't blend aerobic capacity and anaerobic?

My reply was to Zante.

Also, I never said you can't blend them, you just need to understand that they pull in different directions. You can't maximize both at the same time since at the extreme ends they are antagonistic to each other. In the right doses at the right times of the year they should be in training together. That's going to depend on the athlete, the event, and the season as a whole (likely in that order).

The dose makes the poison. Literally everything in the world is poisonous in a high enough dose. Coaches are meant to be there to moderate that dose to athletes have the things that they need but not go overboard.

So generally, what is a good dose of anaerobic training to aerobic training? 2:4 I was thinking.