running at Aerobic capacity (Lydiard stuff)

Do you have any thing off of 1500 or mile time? I have never run a 5K. thanks

If you post your mile time, I can give you a best guess (ballpark figure) for the various training paces that would best suit you right now. OR you can buy _Daniels Running Formula_ and figure it out for yourself.

Consider your 1500 race pace equal to rep pace and that would make interval pace (VO2max) about 6 seconds per 400 slower than this rep pace and threshold pace would then be about 6 seconds per 400 slower than interval pace (or 12 sec per 400 slower than rep -- 1500 race pace). Of course you must be using a CURRENT 1500 time to make this work properly, not your lifetime best, unless currently in that shape

Jack are the McMillan Calculator (http://www.mcmillanrunning.com) numbers based on you work or are they just basic physiology values?

Also, jtupper do you plan to publish those tables you mentioned in the revised book or will they appear elsewhere?

Alright, here is a little more background on my condition:

I'm a 400/800/1500 guy who has always been negative towards distance running in the past. I'm mostly interval trained. Pr's are 49, 1:54 and 4:00 (1500).

I just picked up the Lydiard book out of interest and started reading. I like what I read so I?m deciding to put more distance work into my regime.

Here is what I got from the Lydiard book: according to him aerobic running is 19 times more efficient than anaerobic. The difference between aerobic and anaerobic is that anaerobic brings on an oxygen debt, which in turn causes lactic acid to accumulate, which causes muscles to break down and blood pH to go down ? so basically this is bad and you don?t? want to do much of it until you are sharpening up for racing. He also said that a person has a certain limit of total oxygen debt in him/her - 15 liters, I think. So Lydiard says that by training at aerobic paces (these paces vary from person to person and improve as the runner gets into better condition) you will increase the number of liters per minute you can utilize, which in turn increases the pace you can run while not incurring oxygen debt. From reading his book I didn?t really think he was talking about different paces, just one steady pace which will increase as aerobic capacity increases ? am I wrong?

So I'm taking this as being true, and I would like to run more distance. I would also like to do some supplementary running (jogging according to Lydiard), because he says that it also helps. The thing is I want to do it gradually and I?m still iffy on if I want to even run more than an hour straight. I figure that I?m lacking endurance as it is so any improvement will help.

So back to my question. I really don?t? know much about different paces, I just want to know how I should be feeling if I want to be doing 70 - 100% of my aerobic limit. I don't know very much about the Coe method, although I know he used different paces. I just want to try out this Lydiard thing - mind you I probably wont' reach his ?ideal? marathon training schedule (i.e. 1-3 hours each day of the week). Because I?m not going to be able to reach this I wanted to do that supplementary jogging in the morning (I train in the evenings, only once a day). I was also considering increasing the times of my warm-up and warm down (maybe 20-30 min), and gradually building my weekly long run to an hour (I?m at 30 min now). So the reason I was asking was because I don't want to go too slowly when I do my aerobic running (this doesn't include the supplementary jogging) so that I can get the best benefit. I don?t? want to be doing LSD running.

On a side note, I really don?t' care about mileage, I think it is better (for me anyway) to just consider the amount of time I run, for now.

Thanks for all your suggestions.

jackinthebox, you seem similar to a buddy of mine

His PR's are 49, 1:50, 4:00 (1500m)

This past year he changed his approach to training and did the whole lydiard system, but because he was injury prone, he started slow, and never reached over 40 miles/week all year. He ended up having an average season, beating his 1500 PR by 3sec but only running 152 in the 800.

This year he is planning on increasing his milage to 50-70 miles/week, on a lydiard 1 peak plan

The difference is really the difference between the number of ATP's that are required to perform aerobic (1 ATP) activity versus the number required to perform anaerobic (18 ATP) activity.

There's no fixed number from what I've read, but, it varies from 13-18 depending on the individual, while 15 is an average reading.

He did mention that the 10-milers in the latter part of the week were run harder than the first 10-milers. He doesn't say run at the pace such and such to run 3:50 for 1500m. He does say that he got his runners to where they could run 5:55.

I spoke with someone recently who worked with Lydiard for 3 months as a translator in Peru. He said that first you should work up to doing all your mileage in a single effort. So, that means 100 miles a week on singles. Only after 2-3 years, he said, Lydiard would advise runners to add a secondary run. For you, I think that he would suggest getting volume up first.

You will feel quite tired...but, in an article on trackhead's link, you can find that Lydiard says the real secret of having his guys run fast was to keep them fresh and sharp. So, that means if you can't run a 100 miles a week and recover, then, it's too much.

Oh, one more thing, he would suggest going for time before distance. So, that doesn't mean you need to run 3:00 a day. Look at his basic charts. They tell you everything you need to know.

If you want to know more about Coe's program, buy his book. It's a lot of info. The essence of it comes down to the concept of multi-pace or multi-tier training. In short, train at all paces all year long in varying amounts.

That's fine. Lydiard's guys were almost all working men and they only had time to run once a day. Only the real studs trained 2 times a day...cause they had time. Remember, this was before the era of financial reward for athletic success.

Rule of thumb: run hard enough to feel you could only go another 1/2 mile in your daily runs. That will probably be more than 30-1:00. Hope this helps.

Sure I can -- however they will be less accurate. 5k and up are far greater indicators of aerobic ability than 1500m/below.

It will take me a little time, though. I just dropped off my laptop to be repaired and my charts went with it.

wannabekila,

Aerobic conditioning is about the pace that a long run should be completed at. You're working on building mitochondria, myoglobin, capilaries, increasing skeletal strength and heart stroke volume. Again, it's around 65-80% of MHR. And I've found it accurate among both the average runner and elites.

The 16:00 5k runner should be running their long runs around 7:00/mi, +/-.

I've read that Paul Tergat runs a substantial portion of his mileage at around 5:25-5:40/mi -- right on target.

I guess it's time to get it in print. So much to do, so little time, darn that daily job. I'm working on it. Time for another sabbatical

Lots of excellent info in this thread, folks. Thanks a ton to those of you in the know.

I wanted to lob a question to anyone who is familiar with Lydiard's methods (HRE, you out there man?). I've been reading his book "Running the Lydiard Way," and I'm frankly having a tough time coming to terms with the approach he's outlined. I think in large part it's a question of terminology, which I guess is at the heart of this thread.

Lydiard talks about doing most of your running for marathon training at "maximum steady state." I understand him to mean the pace you could run a specific distance where you would finish "pleasantly tired," thinking you could have run (a little?) faster if you'd wanted to.

I would think this pace would vary depending on distance, and so couldn't necessarily be pegged to any of the specific "gears" or set paces discussed in earlier posts.

Can anybody give me a clear translation of what pace Lydiard was suggesting as "maximum steady state," which would comprise the bulk of the aerobic development in marathon training?

Was Lydiard promoting running which would be faster than the approach outlined by Hadd for the bulk of the aerobic development (ie below 75% HRmax, with a couple of harder weekly efforts once you'd mastered your pace at that effort)?

And how would Lydiard's "maximum steady state" compare with what others recommend for aerobic conditioning (Daniels, Coe, etc)?

I know that's a lot of questions. Pardon my ignorance, but I'm quite enjoying this topic.

I'm not sure of the answer. From what you write here, it sounds to me as though "maximum steady state" is faster than the easy aerobic-minded pace discussed in the Martin/Coe book and by Daniels. Certainly, the "jogging" mentioned above by another poster sounds more like a typical easy run of around 70% maxHR. I would hazard that "maximum steady state" is something akin to marathon pace which, when you aren't overly ambitious with your projected race time, feel sustainable but does leave you pleasantly tired. If that's the case, then it seems possible that you'd overtrain for the marathon. But that's just my opinion.

As you note, Jtupper's point above about the benefits of standard definitions for the various kinds of training is spot on. It's another reason why I oppose breaking down training emphasis into too many zones.

Yes, it would be excellent to have some standard, widely accepted terminology that everyone could apply consistently. And as Jack said, definitions wouldn't need to be tied to or dictate a specific approach or philosophy, but would provide for a standard way of talking about and comparing them.

Lydiard's book was written from his personal experience both as an athlete and coach, and so the language he uses seems to reflect his own individual way of conceptualizing things. With my frame of reference anchored in the language of today's running, I find it hard to relate. I bet if I met him, he'd explain it crystal clear, and I'd wonder why the hell I didn't understand in the first place.

Anyway, I suspect you're right, that "maximum steady state" would be humming along at a pretty good clip. Again, though, I think it would vary with distance. I think MP might be applicable for something like a five mile run, but would slow by 30-45 s for something like 15 miles. In any event, those paces seem really fast for aerobic training. So is that what he was saying, or have I misinterpreted?

It would be good to hear from someone that really knows the mechanics of what Lydiard was teaching. HRE...? Anyone? Arthur, are you out there?

In Lydiard's second book he goes on to say his top athletes would run 3.25-3.75 per kilometer on "steady state" runs. This is 5:13-6:03 per mile. At 5:13 pace that's about 2:16 marathon pace. Murray Halberg was a Lydiard athlete and ran 13:35 in 1961. That's 4:22 mile pace. So at 5:13 he'd likely be close to his expected marathon pace (most likely a little slower). It's likely that these athletes didn't run their "steady state" runs at the same pace every time but that they maintained a range somewhere between expected marathon effort and an "honest" effort.

Alan

Great topic, but I would like some clarification on

%MHR (max heart rate) when compared to %HRR(heart rate

reserve).

Max Heart Rate = 191

Rest Heart Rate = 32

70% of MHR = 191 x 0.70 = 134 bpm

70% of HRR = (191 - 32) x 0.70 + 32 = 143 bpm

. . . a difference of 9 bpm.

Most people seem to agree that under 70% is approximately were

one should be when doing easy runs or building a base. And since

we are talking about terminology here it also seems that some

folks use 70% interchangeably between %MHR and %HRR. It also

seems true that most runners would used %HRR.

So when 70% MHR is stated are they truely meanig 70% Max Heart

Rate or are they mistakenly using it to refer to %HRR, which

I would think is the prefered method. The difference at 70% is

a wide gap.

I've had this sort of question too. The only person I've seen to give numbers for training paces relative to racing/performance levels is Jack Daniels. I asked on a post once but never got a response. For his system, I found I had to do %HRR in order to run the times listed. However, it never clearly states which to use even though there's a section in DRF that talks about adjusting heart rates and how maxes play a factor in performance.

Tony Benson also has a section on that in his book, but, he states to run using %HRR.

This link has some small insights:

http://www.runningtimes.com/issues/02nov/lydiard.htm

A Revolutionary Method

Lydiard discovered running for sport when he struggled to run five miles with a friend. Forced to confront his own unfitness, he self-experimented with training, including running more than 250 miles in one week. He developed a plan that he felt confident in using with other runners. Central to his method was the importance of training in phases and peaking for major events.

According to Lydiard, any successful training program must culminate in a goal race or racing period. This means planning several months. The ideal training schedule is at least 28 weeks: 12 weeks for base conditioning, eight weeks for hill training and speed development, six weeks for sharpening and 10 days for tapering/rest.

Phase 1: Base Conditioning/Aerobic Training

This three-month period is the most important in the Lydiard system. If you want to give yourself every opportunity to reach your goal, you must commit to developing your aerobic capacity, says Lydiard. Why? Because although every runner has a limited anaerobic (speed-building) capacity, that limit is largely set by one?s aerobic potential?the body?s ability to use oxygen. Thus, the aerobic capacity that you develop determines the success of your entire training program.

The foundation of Lydiard-style base conditioning is three long runs per week. These are steady runs done at more than recovery effort. To determine your pace, choose a relatively flat course and run out at a strong pace for 15 minutes, then run back. The goal is to return in the same time or slightly faster. If it takes you longer for the return trip, you paced yourself too fast. The objective of these runs is to be "pleasantly tired," says Lydiard. Running slower will produce positive effects, but the results will take longer. Do not run to the point of lactic-acid buildup.

An ideal training week during this period includes a two-hour run and two one and one half-hour runs. On the other days do short, easy runs; one run with some light picking up of the pace; and one 5K to 10K tempo run (below lactate-threshold pace). Decrease the times and distances if you don?t have the mileage base to start at such high volume, then build gradually.

From:

http://www.runningtimes.com/issues/00june/lydiard.htm

To equate % HRR to % MHR you have to minus 5% from HRR (more or less). So...

Threshold is 90% MHR but 85% HHR:

Runner with 50 HR at rest, 200 max: 90% of 200 is 180. 85% of HHR is [(200-50) x .85] + 50 = 177.5 So MHR method: 180, HHR method 178.

Easy running, 70% max for same runner, 65% HHR: 70% of 200 is 140, [(200-50) x .65] + 50 = 147

The percent change between MHR and HRR is't always 5% for every effort level, especially once you get up to VO2max. I think the difference then is only 3%.

Alan