LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Geez !I knew it ! I dropped myself in it.

The 1:42. All I have done is pass on a story I was told by some of the crew that was Coached by Arthur. Whether it was embelished I don't know, but I knew some of the guys who were there and they said (in Kiwi Terms !) They were handed a "hiding" on that rep. In US Terms it was a "beating".

I know the Downhill section of Road where that workout was done. Very smooth underfoot and definitly down hill but not so much that you would lose control.

Take it or leave it !

I just checked : Did I say that 12 X 800 is Bad and 6 is OK.

No ! I just said I would not do it. I picked 6 to illustrate a point

If I said to my 16 year old crew we were doing 12X 800 they would say. "How boring" Rep after Rep.

How I have approached this stuff with kids is mix it up.

This is an exact workout I have done with my crew.

Because I have 'gone back to nature" I tend to run longer reps on trails not the track (which is a little too far away) for kids to get too even if I did do it there)

We meet at the Track Club HQ and then run anything from 20 to 25 minutes through forest to get to some trails. We do light strides and then I have had them run 4 to 6 X 800 (probably 6) in around 2:15 - 20 jogging back about 3 minutes (I don't time it, we just jog till we are ready for the next one.)

At the end we will run the 20 to 25 minutes home.

This can take 75 to 90 minutes. Once again I don't count

Hope this helps

wellnow and others,

As I said before, I have known runners who could run 12 x 400 in 60, recover in 2 days and do an equal workout. But 12 x 800 in 2:08 would not have been something they could do. Why? They lacked the endurance and stamina to handle that level of work. They were "gifted" with enough speed to run 12 x 400 in 60 with 60 second rest and handle it. They had not done the work to be able to complete a workout of 12 x 800 at that speed. It is something they would have needed to progress to. Even Kim's 6 x 800 at 2:08 with 60 seconds rest would have left them in the dust.

My point, again, is that you have to coach runners WHERE THEY ARE, not where they want to be. Sure you bounce between both as Bowerman did. But IF, the big IF, you do all the work at the goal pace and ignore developing the current fitness level, you end up with injured. sick and burned-out runners.

I believe it takes 3 to 5 years to get a runner to their best performance level. They can progress from there. It just takes time and work.

Good running,

Glenn

Thanks Glenn. I had to stop short that last post. Essential home chores to be done.

I concur with Glenn. It is about where they are now not where they want to be.

To further my piece I was going to say that in a year or so IF I decided we would increase those 800's we may go to 8, year after that 10 etc, or I may increase the intensity.

But before I looked at what I would do I would know where the athlete is and what they needed and what they could handle.

I have another young guy who started with me at 15 years old.

At 15 his long Sunday run was 45 - 50 minutes. Two years later it was 80 - 90 minutes. We worked everything on a gradual basis. Each section of training was increased accordingly as time progressed.

Keep this going Team

Just to echo Glenn and Kim, I spent my early years trying to do fast sessions of 440s. Sixty was a bit beyond my reach, but 70 was sort of a goal. I could not do them. I could do two or three and then faded like crazy.

Once I started doing Lydiard type basework for a few years, I was able to run a session of 12x440 averaging 66. Again, not 60's, but for a guy who struggled to get to 80's for an entire session of 440s, that was quite an improvement. But it only came after I'd built a base.

Glenn McCarthy wrote:

I believe it takes 3 to 5 years to get a runner to their best performance level. They can progress from there. It just takes time and work.

Good running,

Glenn

Just 3 to 5?

Team,

Here's some feedback on the Lydiard thoughts and principles discussed here.

I'm a 51 year old self coached club runner who wanted to find out this year if there's any gas left in the tank. I've been meandering along for about seven years at the same stagnated plateau. Deep down I probably realize the cold hard reality of age has set in, but I'm not willing to consciously admit it. Anyway, that was the goal: Is there anything left?

My cycle was from January to now. I was lucky with no illness or sickness. I had one week off of running during the base phase when I went skiing for a week, and I missed one week of anaerobic training due to a very intense week at work and missing a lot of sleep. That week held me back, but all in all I consistently got through the training.

I had come across Arthur's paper about training and decided to give it a go. A high mileage week for me was 40-50, with long run of maybe 10-12. Starting in January I went into the mileage buildup. I didn't do the 100m repeats during this, just went out and put in miles. No track work. I worked up to several weeks of 80-84 miles with 16-18 mile long runs. Actually, had one long run of 21. I'm not a marathoner, so I was pretty proud of that.

Then I did four weeks of the hill phase. I felt at my age I couldn't do three days a week of hills, so I did two. I had a mile loop where I ran hard up for about 400m, jogged 400m at top, fast strided down for 400m, jogged 200m, sprinted 150m on flat, jogged 50m and repeated that 5 times. The following day I would do 8 x 150m "move legs fast" on a downhill. I did that two day set twice a week and kept the long run in. I had to fight to let go of the weekly mileage total I had become used to, but felt the mileage needed to drop off due to the hill work. I hadn't seen this thread yet, so I'm really interested in the hill bounding things you guys have talked about.

Then I did four weeks of the anaerobic stuff. Weekly mileage continuing to drop.

Then four weeks of the coordination stuff. Weekly mileage now about 35-40. In here is where I found this thread. I wasn't sure how to do the 50/50s, but I did them the way you guys described them. I could only go 1600m, and I was spent. Totally! Probably the toughest workout I've run. But I really think they callused me and toughed me up and allowed me to maintain form and some speed when tired. Did that once a week for three weeks. I didn't do those during the freshen up phase because even out at ten days from the race, I was afraid they would take too much out of me. Glenn's comments about doing them once every ten to fourteen days may be closer to the mark for me.

So here's the results. Last year I ran a 5:20 mile. This year I ran a 5:18. I was a bit disappointed in the time, but last year I was an empty shell. After 600m last year, I was struggling with anaerobic fatigue. With 100m to go, there was nothing there and people walked away from me. This year I ran a tactical race, sitting on the leaders of my heat, and felt strong the whole race. With 300m to go, I really took off. I surprised myself. With 100m to go, I was way into oxygen debt, but those 50/50s brought me home. I gained 3 seconds over the competition on that last 300m.

So here's my thoughts on this cycle. Not a great time improvement in that one race, but I was so much stronger. Last year I would shuffle when I ran. This year I feel some of that old spring back in my legs. Some of that old turnover. Last year I could run 200's at 36-37, 300 at 59-60 and 800 at 2:50-55 and felt struggling. This year 200's were down to 33-34, 300's 52-53 and 800's 2:44-46 and felt easy.

As a comparison, anaerobic workout: 3 x [800 w200r, 300 w300r] keep 800 steady, cutdown the 300s

Last year:

2:57.6 62.0

3:02.5 62.0

2:59.8 61.0

This year:

2:47.2 56.1

2:46.1 54.3

2:47.1 55.1

Still not strong enough to cutdown the 300s, but felt so much more powerful than last year.

I have always had decent speed (that has since eroded) and weak strength or staying power. I feel this cycle has brought some of the speed back and made me stronger. I feel that if I can go through another cycle or two, my speed will come back even more, but if I can continue the strength gains to hold that speed, just maybe I can pop one for old times sake.

I'm not trying to say Lydiard is the best, and my apologies to Dr Daniels as I am not familiar with your training. I'm just providing some feedback from my experience to let you know I've tried to put into practice the advice you guys have generously provided. Maybe another system I would have done just as well or better. I just know I gave this one a try and it seems to have some promise for breaking me out of my plateau.

gapa wrote:

You just don´t get it. The question, like the previous posters said, is how do you get somebody to be able to do a session like 12x800 in 2,08. You can have young runners running 12x800 weekly for years and they won´t become top runners because they don´t have the correct background training. It wasn´t monster interval sessions in their teens that made El G, Geb etc. world class, it was patient, long-term, well-planned training.

What is it that I just don't get? The runner in question already has awesome endurance, he can run 12x400 in 60 with 60 rest and recover in two days. So why would 12x400 in 2.08 be such a problem.

This is the problem with most of those who adhere to Lydiardism, lack of attention to specific pace, which will always lead to underachieving.

Storm's a'brewin. :)

Yes. Lydiard's guys all underachieved. You've done so much better I'm sure.

Without Lydiard there would be no Daniels.

12x800 would probably be a suitable session for a 27 min guy (typical 10k session) but show me a runner of lesser ability who can handle that type of session.

How do you know what you can do until you try?

The type of guy I am talking about has run maybe 13.40 for 5000m aged in his early 20's.

He doesn't want to be just another good runner, he is ambitious.

In the right race in very good weather conditions he could probably run 13.20.

I am asking him to run 10x1000m @ that pace, after a few weeks or months building up to it. It's hard, but do-able, which is what the best sessions should be.

WHY NOT?

we run 10x400 at our goal 1500m pace and, on a good day we can do that session and feel good. It's hard, but do-able.

So why not extend your other paces too?

Why should this thread go round and round in circles, with posters avoiding the issues which most Lydiardists are afraid to confront?

Specific pace training being the most important one.

I'm not anti Lydiard, I am trying to keep the pot boiling, but with the issues I consider important, which are overlooked or ignored by others claiming to be the true adherents of Lydiardism.

wellnow i love you

Hey -- my dad's name was Bob

Nice one Jack.

In 1980, Frank Shorter was struggling with injuries and couldn't do the miles he once did. He decided to try to make the Olympic team in the 10,000 and said he was ready to go under 28. He said he knew he was ready for a sub 28 because he'd been doing the same interval sessions in the same times as he'd been doing in 1972 when he ran 27:51.

He never broke 28. He never broke 29.

"Lydiardists" are not afraid to confront the idea of specific pace training. In fact, if I were coaching someone who had realistic hopes of running under 27 for the 10,000, I probably would have him doing some specific pace work. But it wouldn't be 12x400 in 60, (which by the way isn't really a race specific pace for someone hoping to do sub 27, why not 20-25x400 at 63?) I'd be more inclined to have them run a 5,000 in 13:20 or so and see if they felt like there was a fair amount of gas still in the tank.

A lot of people are obsessed with the idea of finding a particular session which is predictive of performance, witness the plethora of "How fast can I run a 5km based on this workout" threads we have here. Lydiard, and probably most of us who took his methods to heart, generally are skeptical about that sort of thing. We're probably more dismissive of ti than afraid of it.

I do not see pace specific training as being neglected by Lyiard, or perhaps I don't understand either pace specific training or Lydiard well enough. For me, I had some good basic speed and I can concentrate well on up to 400m. I could run 10 400s at well under my mile race pace, but never come close to that pace in a race. My problem has always been that after 400m I start losing my concentration and physically I have always had problems tying those 400s back to back to back. What I see in Lydiard is that in the anaerobic phase there's pace specific training like the 400s or 1000s and there's a lot of pace specific training in TT and races in the coordination phase. I tried to use TTs at under distances to physically make me stronger at putting the 400s back to back to back. This also helped my concentration and confidence. In addition, I have never done background mileage and this really seemed to help me this year. I feel some staying power that I didn't have last year. I like HRE's approach for the 10K of, after progressing to that point, running a 5K and seeing how that feels. That would be a solid pace challenge for me and boost my confidence.

I don't ever really recall Lydiard being an advocate for 400m repeats except for 800/mile specific work. A large amount of his running was volume near race pace. The hill repeat sessions if done correctly can tally up to 10 miles easily. The road runs of 10 miles moderate, marathon as training runs, and general long runs make Lydiards schedule very hard. Jack actually coached me individually back in 2002. I wanted to run a mile in 4:18; he started coaching me in January of 2002 - in May of 2002 I ran a 4:17.8. His workouts were quite difficult as I can recall. There was nothing easy about 4-5X800m in 2:14 with an 800m recovery. Jack was big on getting the speed down first for coordination and then getting the strength through weekend long runs and race pace intervals/tempo runs. Every faster session always concluded with 200's at 800m pace. I ran my half marathon PR training under him while focusing on the mile! I think they both work well - they just focus on putting the ingredients in the pie in a different order. I think VanAcken was ahead of Lydiard in applying that base needs to always be built. As I have gotten older i've realized interval work is a bit overrated, but not the steady 7-10 mile runs with the long runs! Those will make you a good runner, period! Sure, you may lose a little 400 - mile speed - but who really is focusing on true track races once you are out of college and focused on work/family.

I've been training base since mid May. So now I am 13 weeks away from my focal race and I want to work in some interval stuff. I was thinking repeats milers next Tuesday with 1:1 rest. What kind of effort should I give these? This will be my first interval session since April so I figure I shouldn't go crazy. I'm also doing a 3 mile TT tomorrow as per coach's request so that will be a nice measurement of where I am at right now. I will be keeping Wednesday and Saturday long but how should fill my schedule in between. I'm just looking for a few example workouts to get me through the next 2.5 week until I am doing intervals with my team again.

Thanks

P.S. I have another thread of my own but I thought this one might get a quicker response, the other one might get overlooked....