Lydiard Question

My opinion from a guy that ran twice per day his senior year of high school:

I think running twice per day is fine for volumes less than 100mi/wk because it allows more volume with added rest. For example, at that point I could not handle successive 80mi weeks run in single sessions. Starting practice a 3pm I might get 7 in on Monday, 10 in on Tuesday, 5 (recovery) on Wednesday, 8 on Thursday, 5 on Tuesday and then 12 on Saturday. Add that to the 16mi long run I did the Sunday before and that's 63mi. But it was supposed to be an 80mi week. So I threw in easy 45min (~6mi) runs before school 3 times per week. It was added general recovery (influx of oxygen rich blood to clear out the crap that Monday, Tuesday and Thursday brought) and it gave me the volume I needed.

I know that the continuous sets of mileage are slightly more beneficial than broken up in this case (because the blood's pressure against the blood vessel from exercise is what initiates capilarization) but I still got virtually the same benefit and not one injury.

O.K., I'm one of the guys from the "good old days" mid 70's collegiate era. You've heard the story many times on this forum.

Although the basic principals of Lydiard are sound there is one thing that bothers me and old timers like myself I think.

It is all of the weeks and weeks, months and months of building a base before the "big day" arrives.

To get good you need a weekly or bi-weekly cycle of train pretty hard , rest a little, race.

Its that simple, period.

Hell I'm an old 49 year old man now and I'm chomping at the bit right now waiting for my first local road race on March 14th. Nothing else available before that.

Get out and race guys!!

theres no denying that lydiard was a great coach and so on but with something as simple as increasing mileage, a formula is unessasary. dc449, if you are a highschool runner who is a reasonably efficient runner then there is no need to stick to a 10week schedule. Most of the guys on here are later in thier careers and its harder on thier bodies to go from low mileage to 100 or so, you can do in a few weeks. If you can find malmo's manifesto, i think it on Hodgie San's site, read it. Its got the ideas, just out there twice a day, and run. Don't think about pace, just go out and run till you are tired and your legs get a little sore then run for about 10mins longer, the next day, take it a bit easier. Eventually you will feel a general state of fatigue but this is fine, in fact, it is important, thats how you know you are getting the most out of your progression. If you are dreading leaving the door in the morning, go for 10 or 15 mins, then go again in the afternoon and if you still feel like crap take the day off. Its really simple, and if you want any ongoing advice about it feel free to email me. When i was in highschool i was looking for formulas and answers but you just have to research and research and in the end its just a foundation for you to explore your body and find out what it can and can't do.

I am currently following the Lydiard program with John's help. The main motivator for me to use this program and get to 100 miles as quickly as possible is simple... I have been out of the game for so long I think the most important thing right now is to build a real proper base. I'm not concerned about racing or anything simply because my lifetime mileage is lacking right now. Once I get my lifetime mileage up a bit, via the Lydiard system, I plan on altering my plan a bit.

For example, for the next 4 years, I plan on being a Lydiard man. Its not like he doesn't peak you nor prepare you to run fast... he does both. When I'm 30 4 years from now, I anticipate being more a Coe man... always staying in touch with my speed year round, racing often, etc. BUT, I think you need that massive base of easy mileage before you can do that. That's what Lydiard gives his runners while still preparing them to run fast "when it counts."

I'm excited about the possibilities because they make sense! I firmly believe there is a time and place for each of these training methods... its finding out when, where and why that is tricky.

You can run 100 a wk./ with two a days using Lydiard. Snell did this. He ran 5 in the morning and 10 at night. It is in his autobiography.

Another point Snell has said the one thing he would of changed about his training is to add a st of 440's in his training all year round. The Kiwi clubs do a fartlek run once a week.

The principle Conto is talking about is exactly what the Africans do. They get the mileage in as children, then when they mature and can handle the tough interval work, they go to a multi-pace system. American's try to cop the multi-pace part and forget the aerobic development that they did as children. Guys like Webb think swimming is gonna do it for him, but it ain't running against gravity. Probably caused all those injury problems. Of course he's still pretty fast, so it is working for him, but who knows how fast he could be if he kept progressing.

Hey Soup!

How's the night training coming?

As far as doing nothing but base building for years on end without doing anaerobic work or racing goes, in theory it is great, but is it practical - hell no! No one wants to go that long with out aiming to peak for a race. And if you do, you are in danger of becoming what Marty Liquori calls a "training rat". According to Liquori, the training rat gets hypnotized by the simplicity and security and the relative ease of the one long, easy run per day, and they put off what they know they must do if they want to win races. They remain locked in the base building phase indefinitely and are destined to exact whatever glory they can not from races, but from drinking parties and bars where they gloat to other runners over their mileage charts.

At least once a year you need to go into the anaerobic phases and put it on the line. This keeps it interesting, gives you feedback as to how you are progressing, you learn what works for YOU and what doesn't and keeps you not far from the mental toughness a race requires.

While we are talking about Lydiard training. One of the guys I am helping is a former miler who is moving up the 8K range and he is making very impressive progress. He has only been at 100 MPW for about 4 weeks and he has already knocked 10 minutes off his 22 miler and is down to 2:26 with a heart rate of 143. I find this pretty damn exciting to think about where this guy is going to be after 6 months of Lydiard style training!

Those who insist that 100 miles is most effectively done in singles, might better focus on time-per-session.

Imagine that two runners each run only in the morning and that each logs a week with four 60-min sessions, two 90-min sessions, and one 120-min session.

Depending on their performance levels, one of the runners might cover 100 miles a week while the other runner covers only 70 miles.

It seems reasonable that the slower runner--no less than the faster one--might be better served by adding evening runs to the schedule rather than spending more time per the single sessions.

Hey John,

Good to hear from you. Can you give us more details about this guy you've been training and keep us updated on his progress.

Also, you mentioned to me a long time ago that you felt road racing should be reserved to your middle-ages and track racing should be #1 priority (atleast if you're in your teens-20s). Why?

Lydiard,

That is exactly correct about the Kenyans and exactly what I had in mind when I searched out Lydiard's principles and John Molvar. In my case its not like I have no base either... I mean I was a runner for 8 years throughout hs (averaged about 20 a week) and college (maybe averaged 40 a week throughout my 4 years... with weeks as high as 90 and 100, and as low as 0) and had moderate success (more in training runs than in racing, but that is another story all together and deserves a whole thread on mental ability - or in my case, lack thereof once I got to college).

But, allow me to address the question at hand... doubles versus singles.

The way I see it is the more mileage one can handle in singles the better. If he/she can't handle singles, though, then start breaking up the runs. Its as simple as that. Do as much as possible in one run a day and go from there. There are definitely biological reasons why one longer run a day is more beneficial to a runner... from recruiting fast twitch muscle fibers to increasing the size of muscle mitochondria.

I also tend to think 1-a-days fit into a working person's life much better than 2-a-days. Why do 2 runs and be tired from waking up early when you can have 1 run and sleep in a bit? That 1 run will be a more quality run than either of the 2 runs just based simply on bing more rested.

M

Singles are beneficial to a point. Lydiard's upper limits were given, though largely due to intuition based on his own experience, as a way to prevent overtraining. Anything over 100 in singles (unless you are super-elite) will more than likely start causing subtle biochemical changes that might be more detrimental than helpful. If you hit 100 and feel the need for more, add some. But, don't necessarily do it before then unless your training pace is well below 7:00 miles./

Conto say:

>There are definitely biological reasons why one longer run a day is more beneficial to a runner... from recruiting fast twitch muscle fibers to increasing the size of muscle mitochondria.<

The great majority of the best distance runners I have ever known and spoken with about their running RUN DOUBLES. Whether they are over 100m/week or not.

Check out Steve Scott's log. Am I to believe that it would have been more beneficial for him to run his weekly mileage in singles??

His top end weeks were in the 90-100's. Doubles work best for most and that is why most do doubles. Very simple.

No Hodgie... its because Steve Scott was running 2 workouts a week and a race and a long run. That leaves 3 days a week to get his mileage in. I could see it making sense running 2 a days in that framework. I can also see it making sense running 2 a days when you run a workout in the morning (lets say interval track work) and then a "shake-out" later in the evening. I am not "against" doubles. I just see doubles and singles each having their place. For me, singles are for base building and doubles are for when I start serious workouts and are used as supplemental runs.

M

I read Steve Scott's book several years ago and he is simply an amazing guy. He was an animal. One should read as much as possible when trying to study training methods. But, I am not sure we can model ideal training after Steve Scott's training.

How many out there are going to recommend that we run 50 races per year like Steve Scott did as the ideal way to train?

It we took America's top 10 milers of today and had them run 50 hard races per year, would they improve or get worse?

I don't think it is a stretch to say that Steve Scott is an exceptional guy.

One other thing I have to wonder is if a normal sedentary person can get to 100 mpw in 10 weeks, they are probably doing it very very slowly. For some, this would mean some of the longer runs could take far over 3 hours. Would it still be recomended at a pace that slow, say 10+ min/mile? 3.5-4 hours is a hell of a long time espicially for someone who has never ran before...

That is why in some of Lydiard's books he recommends running for a certain amount of time. In some of his books he recommends distance. In one of his books, he recommends using time intitially till you achieve some sort of condition level then switch to distance.

Conto say:

>No Hodgie... its because Steve Scott was running 2 workouts a week and a race and a long run. That leaves 3 days a week to get his mileage in.<

9/28: 15mile hills

9/29: AM 5mi PM 5mi

9/30: AM 5mi PM 10 mi

10/1: AM 5mi PM 10mi

10/2: AM 5mi PM 10mi

10/3: AM 5mi very slow PM 10mi

10/4: AM Central Park 5k. Jogged to start of race. Ran 13:50 for 5km around park. Jogged around the park after. PM 6 mi

Week: 97mi

Its official!

On the IAAF website it clearly states that all athletes are allowed to run BOTH SINGLES AND DOUBLES IN A GIVEN WEEK!

This is great news, and should bring peace to the singles/doubles arguments.

Molvar say:

> But, I am not sure we can model ideal training after Steve Scott's training.<

>How many out there are going to recommend that we run 50 races per year like Steve Scott did as the ideal way to train?<

The log shows Steve Scott at the height of his career and not the developing years. I bet he ran twice per day throughout.

There is a pattern to his running that can be used as a model.

The exact running he did each day certainly brought out the best in him, not that anyone would want to try and do it EXACTLY as he did.