A new way to train

When I was in college, I was running 100 miles a week but only managed high-33 minutes for 10k. That was when I met with Arthur Lydiard. Upon analyzing my training schedule, he told me to do some interval training. I thought he was the high mileage guy...! He told me that I was "trying to eat a cake half cooked." "You've never ever COMPLETED a training program..."

In the beginning of his "Athletic Training" (http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training_eng.pdf) he stated that; "It it is first necessary to understand tha, while the objective of training is to develop your anaerobic capacity to exercise, this can only be done in relation to your oxygen uptake level..." In other words, running 100 miles a week is only a pre-requiste before you move on and work on more race-specific training. Even joggers run 100 miles a week. But if you want to race well, you need to teach your body to withstand oxygen debt.

It seems like you have what I had before I met with Arthur. I was very fit--I ran my first marathon in 2:59 over a very hilly course on aerobic running alone. I was able to run 4:26 for the mile in high school. In this one 5k race, my opening mile was 4:40 but that was enough to "hit the wall" simply because my body didn't know what to do with this oxygen debt. This was simply because I was doing nothing but a lot of mileage.

What you need is a structure. It is not a matter of "high mileage at slow speed is no good" or "doing nothing but intervals is no good". You need both. You need to lay out so you know when to do the high mileage; when to do intervals; and when to race. One without the other is like "eating a cake half cooked".

I used to run similar times 1500-10k to you in my younger days. My best 800m time was 2.06 (400 was 59)so there was no way I could run 10-12x400m @63. If you are much faster than 2.06 for 800 but run 4.36 for a mile then I'd think your problem is lack of solid endurance base.

As a 4.36 miler who has been training solidly for 5 years I doubt you will improve 16 secs. 2-3 secs would seem a realistic but ambitious goal.

Consistent, progressive training is usually the way to improve.

NobbyH,

I believe you're on to something here.

xc56788 wrote:

NobbyH,

I believe you're on to something here.

I thought I gave you the same advice but in fewer words!

That's true, Judy, sorry for the oversight. I agree with your assesment of lactic acid intolerance.

The way you explain it, it seems to me like you want to do everything faster than you should be doing it.

You say you want to do more race-specific work, citing targets of 5:00/mi and 5:20/mi pace, but then give an example of a 400m workout at 4:14 pace and an 800m workout at 4:42 pace. These are not your target race paces.

If you want to be race pace specific, it seems that working towards 12x400 at 75 seconds, with a short recovery, or a 10x800 at 2:40, with a short recovery, are more appropriate.

If your goal is improving your 1600m time to 4:20, then that race pace specific session would be closer to 4x400 at 65 seconds.

If you want faster speed-work or sprinting, you don't need as much volume.

I'm by no means an interval training expert, but choosing the right pace for the repetition, and choosing the right recovery interval, are two key factors for making interval training most effective. Changing one or the other, makes it a completely different workout, and maybe not the one you want or need.

Also pay attention to your days between workouts. Maybe 6:30 pace is OK, if it really is easy for you. It's more important that they are easy, rather than targeting a specific pace, or racing your training partners.

Maybe you should take a break from your goal event and train for the 800 and the mile. That way you can develop speed and endurance. The 800 is more than 200m repeats. You still do tempos and 1000m repeats and the like.

Too often runners who don't improve are making cardinal erros in training. For example, lack of balance between training volume and quality and running too fast on a regular basis.

As a coach, I ask runners to show me their logs of past training, so that I can determine trends, such as running too fast or lack of variation in training. Often I notice the runners who perform well over long periods of time tend to include at least 2, if not 3, very easy paced running days per week. What is very easy? That's personal, to a degree, but it generally means a pace so easy the a complete conversation with gasping for breath can take place. It usually means running at least 2 minutes per mile slower than their current 5k pace. It means that a runner goes slow enough to immediately recover from the run, upon finishing.

Good intentions and high motivation won't necessarily take you to the peak of your potential. Smart training is the key, and hammering away and intense intervals/reps often is not going to produce the results you desire; neither is running lots of slow miles.

A quick suggestion: periodize your training, but always include variation in your schedule. During "base" phase, don't just run lots of miles easy; include a marathon paced 40-60 minute run once a week; include an aerobic fartlek once a week, and include some 100m striders on grass, if possible, too. When you transition to hills or intervals that more closely approximate race requirements, balance your training with easy distance work; don't cut mileage for the sake of high intensity. Use a more balanced approach - a la Lydiard, Bowerman, Elliott, Wilson, Clohessy, etc. - that builds your body steadily over time. Don't rush into hard / high-quality workouts and try to prove something to yourself.

Training is training; not racing. Running faster reps/intervals isn't going to ensure you'll run faster in races. Sometimes running slower reps, but completing the workout without being thrashed benefits you more. Example, according to Kim Stevenson of New Zealand, Bill Baillie struggled for years to run a sub-4 in the mile, and it wasn't until he stopped doing 400m reps with Halberg that Baillie finally brok 4-minutes. Baillie slowed down the pace to about 63 per rep, rather than 60 or below, when running alone, and the slowing of the pace, while balancing his weekly volume with distance work resulted in less exhaustion and more strength.

Some of these fine points are well known by coaches and veterans of the sport who worked many years on their own running. All too often aspiring young runners waste years making the same mistakes at veteran runners. My suggestion: find a good coach. Ask around! It's worth it to find a coach who sees the big picture, quickly recognizes trends that benefit you - personally - and tells you when to back off or go forward. Just because yo have a bad experience with a coach before doesn't mean that another coach will be bad too. Perhaps the coach you find next is just perfect for you. At the very least, find a savvy veteran runner who has learned from years of experience what is universally important: training must be balance, generally it should be periodized yet include variation, and it must be tailored to your long-term, rather than short-term, needs.

Regards,

Tinman

It's good to see you here again. Oddly, I was thinking of the Bill Baillie story right before I saw your post. But as I recall, he slowed well beyond 63s. I think he slowed to something like 70-72 but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. Nobby or Kim might chime in on this.

Tempos?

IMHO, your specific aerobic fitness is lacking. Running 7:00 pace for a "high level" runner is really not highly aerobic. Unless you're running super high mileage, you're not tapping into and training the majority of your slow twitch muscles; but even then, your trained running rhythm isn't close to 10k technique so the movements aren't very specific.

Running 400's in 63 seconds requires a lot of power, much more than running 7:00 per mile. So if your aerobic system is in shape for 7's, where do you think the rest of the power will have to come from? That's right, largely your fast twitch - which is why you're going into oxygen debt so soon.

If you want to feel comfortable running a certain pace, it has to be aerobic. So start by feeling comfortable at 6:50's, then 6:40's, then 6:30's, and so on. If you are running at a high level, you should be able to handle most of your mileage closer to 6 than to 7 min/mi. Renato Canova specifies base mileage pace for a 10k runner as 115-120% of their race pace. For example, for a 5:20 10k race pace, Canova would suggest running the majority of your base mileage at ~6:10-6:40.

Quality of the quantity. All of the tempos, long intervals, short intervals are important, but make sure that you're getting the most out of what you are doing the most of.

See, this is what we need to hear more of in general. I agree 100%.

Thanks turkey leg.

I'm tired of hearing, run easy..run easy..run easy..

I think that's why I'm not improving beyong a certain point.

It doesn't matter if you run 80, 90, or 150 miles a week. Your base mileage need to be high end aerobic.

NobbyH wrote:

When I was in college, I was running 100 miles a week .......

I was able to run 4:26 for the mile in high school.

I met with Arthur Lydiard.....

I ask this with all due respect:

Your high school mile time certainly shows some talent. Your ability to run 100 miles a week in college shows the ability to endure high mileage. Both of those things are very promising. And then you studied, met with, and learned from the great Lydiard. Put those three things together, and I would expect some very fast times from you.

What did your PR's end up as? Again, not trying to be annoying, but if they weren't extremely fast, I wouldn't put as much stock in Lydiard's teaching as you do. According to his fans (like you) Lydiard should have been able to take a person with your high school talent and your ability to endure 100 mile weeks and turn them a real champion, right?? Did it happen?

Lightning Bolt wrote:

I ask this with all due respect:

Your high school mile time certainly shows some talent. Your ability to run 100 miles a week in college shows the ability to endure high mileage. Both of those things are very promising. And then you studied, met with, and learned from the great Lydiard. Put those three things together, and I would expect some very fast times from you.

What did your PR's end up as? Again, not trying to be annoying, but if they weren't extremely fast, I wouldn't put as much stock in Lydiard's teaching as you do. According to his fans (like you) Lydiard should have been able to take a person with your high school talent and your ability to endure 100 mile weeks and turn them a real champion, right?? Did it happen?

I never was a runner I always wanted to be... Various reasons but I tell you what; when Lorraine Moller and I announced the launch of Lydiard Foundation in Boulder in 2005, my opening speech was; "There are a lot of 'Nobbys' out there. My motivation of starting Lydiard Foundation and, for that matter, just to become a coach is to help those 'Nobbys'..." I feel that I could have been pretty decent if I had my of today as a coach when I was, say, 17 or 18. I made it to low 31 for 10k, low 15 for 5k... Did 2:44 for the marathon with sciatca pacing one of my girls who went on and won the race in 2:38.

When I came to the US, I was turning 40; my goal was to break 15 minutes when I turned 40. Well, by then, we got our daughter... Excuse, excuse, excuse... But here's another thing too though. Understanding the training method is only the beginning... Well, actually that's not where it start either. Beginning is your passion... When I went to New Zealand, Arthur reall wasn't "coaching". I had to pick pieces on my own to figure things out. That's why I decided to not just hng around Arthur but go out and talk to people like Baillie, Magee and Puckett. The best thing I ever did! But anyways, so when I graduated from collete and went back to Japan, I was teaching English for a while (that's where I met my wife). I commuted 2 hours each way and my work hour was noon to 9:00PM. In order to take the train, I had to leave my house at 9:45AM. So actually the commute was longer than 2 hours! I would get off the train station at about 11:00PM and, instead of taking another train, I would run home which is about 45 minutes run. I got home around midnight... Now that was a perfect excuse NOT to train hard. Looking back, if I was really serious--I just came back from NZ, finished college in the US... If I was really, really serious, I would have thought of some way to train harder... But I didn't. It's like Al Paccino in "Scent of a Woman". "When I came to the cross road, I knew the right way. But without exception, I didn't take it. Why? Because it was too damn hard..." That's it. I didn't take it. So, as a runner, I never became a runner I always wanted to be. It wasn't because of my "talent"; it wasn't because of my knowledge of how to correctly train. But that was the "X factor". I laugh about all the argument about "talent" or how Snell would have been better off if he were coached by Cerutty or all that kind of stuff... What if he didn't do all the long runs but do more intervals? Those are actually not even a core of a thing. Arthur was master of getting runners out with an appropriate company and get them out and run. Peter was, well, kinda lazy--probably more like me. But Arthur knew how to get him out and train. THAT is what coaches do. I knew how to train. But I didn't have that person to kick in my butt (excuse, excuse, excuse...). But it's true. It's easy to say; but it really takes a special person to excute the task without anybody to motivate them, inspire them... That's, as coach Nakamura would say, to make the runner a self-recharging battery. THAT is actually probably 80% of coach's job.

One time, at Hitachi where I coached, I had to yell at this girl. She was very talented. She had this great support from a huge corporation. And she wanted to quit after only 2-years... "That," I told her, "is the environment I never had. And you are just throwing it away!" Nothing annoys more than wasting potential. Because I did; nd that's why I want to be a coach.

You know, when you think about it; all of the readers, aspiring young runners... Let's face it; do you REALLY honestly think doing less training is better? When Malmo comes out and tells you that doing doubles is ALwAYS better, why argue? He was up there. He's telling the truth. Doubles is always better. But why argue? It's becuase you want reassurance that doing less, cheating, is okay. The more you know that you're wrong, the harder you'll argue. It's like a 5-year-old, isn't it? Lately I care less about coming to this message board and "argue" because it's not productive at all. I'd rather put more effort into our own Lydiard Foundation site or our projects. All we want, once again, is to help all those Nobbys out there.

Sorry Team. I have been really bogged down the last 2 months or so with work and also fulfilling my obligations to Triathlon New Zealand.

I have not really read this thread thoroughly but thought I would throw in 2c worth.

I note Tinman and HRE's comment about not training "fast" to race fast and also the reference to Bill Baillie.

In fact Bill said that the year he did the sub 4 minute mile he did not break 30 secs for 200m.

I had never forgotten that and when I was recovering from illness as a College student in the US in the mid seventies I realised that trying to play "catch up" with quick work was going to be crazy. My 'general' training ie Aerobic runs were all done on Hilly courses and Forest trails. I also did a lot of "Effort" runs (Nowdays they would be "tempos") over distances of 3 to 6 miles.

When it came to track work I ran everything in training flats (including time trials) and decided I would try Bill's "never breaking 30 secs for 200m".

I was amazed at the results. I won a lot of races over a mile (very tactical .. not quick .. usually around the 4:14 mark) BUT on occasion I ran the last 660yards under 90 secs. Virtually every race was well into negative splits.

First question I was asked was "How quick are you running your Repetition work". When I told other Coaches and athletes I had not broken 30 secs for 200m in training that season none believed me !!!!

The looks on their faces was enough for me to see that !!!!

You asked for thoughts. Do you want to hear only what you agree with?Run hard..run hard..run hard.. and you will also be tired. Permanently too tired to race fast, and frustrated by "the local douchebags". There is a time to run hard, and a time to run easy. A balanced training needs both: Run hard..run easy..rest..run medium..run easy.. Sufficient recovery between hard running is what will make you faster, and avoid over-reaching or over-training.I will re-ask another question above -- you already mentioned speed, and easy and long runs, but what are you doing to build stamina? Tempos? Progressive Tempos? Daniel's Cruise Intervals? Steady State? Fartleks?Plugging in your 4:36 mile time into McMillan's calculator (http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm) equates to a 5:20/mi 10K, and a 5:09/mi 5K. You should be capable of meeting your 10K goal today. If you can not, your weakness is stamina, not speed. If you want to delay oxygen debt, you need to build stamina. Work on that and it should improve your 5K time, and your mile time too.The same calculator gives you "optimal" training paces for 12 different workouts. For example, 400m "speed" training is 69 to 72 seconds, while 400m "sprint" training is 62 to 69 seconds. 800m speed training is 2:20 to 2:27. For speedwork you can do your 2:20 800m workouts today. Skip your 63s 400m training, or slow them down to 69s. 63s 400m training counts as sprint work, and certainly not the "race specific, pace specific" workout you expressed the desire to do more of.If you want to periodize your training, you should focus on endurance and stamina to build your base during the off-season, say for 2-3 months, and then shift the focus to include developing speed before the racing season, while maintaining your base.If you can't find a good coach, a good start to self-coaching is to pick up a book like Daniel's Running Formula, which gives a balanced baseline reference, based on practical experience with many athletes -- no need to reinvent the wheel. You may find it too conservative, and want to customize it for your own personal strengths or goals, but you shouldn't deviate too far from it, without the knowledge of knowing what you are doing.

xc56788 wrote:

See, this is what we need to hear more of in general. I agree 100%.

Thanks turkey leg.

I'm tired of hearing, run easy..run easy..run easy..

I think that's why I'm not improving beyong a certain point.

It doesn't matter if you run 80, 90, or 150 miles a week. Your base mileage need to be high end aerobic.

I'm just another voice here, but, was in a similar position. In the end, I found that I needed a efw specific things: 1) longer intervals with shorter rest 2) long tempo runs and 3) race prep workouts.

Re short/long reps: when I was younger, I trained like a 800/mile runner even though I raced 5k. Those 400 and 800 reps will not get you ready to max out over 5k. I've done 20 x 400 as fast as 64 second, and, it didn't do anything for my 5k times. For me, 2km intervals seemed to be perfect. I could only get down to about 10k race pace on them, but, doing 4-5 x 2000m with a short jog (say 200m) at 10k race pace and feeling good when I finished...that told me I was ready to kill some shorter races.

Re long tempo runs: longer tempo runs get easier if you push the envelope regularly and in a controlled fashion. I use heart rate monitors and found I could get down to mid-50's for 9 mile tempo runs when I was in sub-16 5k shape. And, those weren't race efforts. Just very, very strong training runs. 70 minute 10 milers don't make any sense to me for a guy wanting to run 15:30. 58-60 muinute 10 milers do however.

Re race prep workouts: if you aren't familiar with the pain it takes to outrun the old local schleps, you'll never gonna be able to deal with it on race day. I would use some of Dellinger's workouts every couple of weeks with increasing amounts of goal pace work.

Lastly, I think mileage is good, but, you have to know your body. I ran tons of miles. I've also run low mileage. And, I've run well off both approaches. However, I found myself injured and burned out more often on more miles. If you have a habit of getting injured, burned out or broken down on one training program, chances are, it's not a good program for you, in spite of what it might allow you to do if you could get all the way to the end. My best 5k's were run on 55-60 miles a week. My best 800 was run on 110 miles a week. It all depends on what you are trying to do.

All due respect, your idea is nothing new; most athletes and coaches tried that in the 1950s or even pre WWII. We found out, however, that athletes who had built aerobic base by doing lots of slower running, such as Elliot and Snell, beat them. And today we are seeing athletes from Africa who had been running lots of mileages when they were growing up meat those who are just as fast but without good aerobic base.

This is just wrong. Snell didn't run slow. The old Lydiard guys ran a lot yes, but not slow. Where does this common mis-understanding come from? The original plan of running 100mpw fast and THEN adding supplement jogs on top of that. They were running 10 milers well inside 60 minutes on tough, hilly course. Their two hour runs would also cover 20 miles, again over hills.

Check out the logs of the likes of Malmo et al. They ran loads but it wasn't jogging. On one post Malmo wrote the times of his 8.5 mile "magneto" loops and the average pace was 5:30 ish. Sometimes quicker, sometimes slower. That was after a slow "gut-check" first mile too. You can run all the miles you want but if it's all 8 minute pace you'll be slow.

Agree.

And rekrunner, you make some good points. I should be working on my stamina as well with tempo runs and the like.

One of the posters above mentioned doing 10 milers under 60 min. and longer reps with short recoveries such as 4 x 2000m @ 10K pace. For me, that would be daunting right now. Probably should start by doing them at 5:30-5;40 pace and work my way down from there.

Although I ran 4:36 in the mile, my speed is still a weakness. I don't think I can break 2:12 in the 800 right now.