Break Down Paavo Please

Okay let's try this on for size:

Why does PAAVO work? My answer would be because of its emphasis on high end aerobic work during the pre/offseason, and its emphasis on high mileage. A long run and a whole lot of tempo runs? Hell, I do that for a month or two before every season, and I consider myself more of the Lydiard school than anything else. Most high schoolers do not properly develop their aerobic systems, and PAAVO forces them to do so, thereby coming into the season very fit. Then they start with slower intervals (correct me if I'm wrong, I've never done PAAVO myself), and later move into fast intervals. Here's a little chart I've drawn:

Base -> Tempo -> Slower Intervals -> Faster Intervals

At its core, it's pretty simple. Jack Daniels often has sets of R pace 200's during early parts of the season, for the purpose of stimulating turnover. I think this is similar to Lydiard's focus on a hill phase. PAAVO simply takes that type of fast repetition and turns it into a fast mile during the pre-season.

There are two real problems with PAAVO:

1. Lack of recovery days if you run all of your runs at the suggested paces.

2. Two much emphasis on following the schedule with zero deviation.

Consider a hypothetical high schooler: He can run 5:45 pace for his short PPM, and should therefore be running 6:30 pace for his CT the next day. That's pretty quick, no doubt, but manageable. Now consider Colby Lowe, the best (current) example of PAAVO success. I would guess he can run around 4:50 pace for his short PPM(?), so he ought to be doing his daily runs at 5:35 pace. Now don't get me wrong, the kid is amazing, but I think even the ballsiest elite distance runners probably don't go that fast on ALL of their daily runs. My point being, the more successful you become, the more you probably ought to alter the system. High school freshmen who don't know pacing can definitely benefit from being pushed to go harder every day, but faster guys who haul ass on those tempos will probably be better off with a somewhat slower day (i.e. PPM pace +1:15 or more).

The second issue is as much a coaching issue as it is a problem with PAAVO. PAAVO is not perfect. Lydiard is not perfect. Daniels is not perfect. It is your job as a coach or runner or both to distill the principles of any system and apply them as you see fit. Not all 800 runners can do 100 mile weeks with 22 mile long runs in the offseason. This does not make Lydiard an idiot, or make Peter Snell a bad example as an athlete. PAAVO is not used in its pure form by elite athletes because if they raced a 4 mile PPM, they'd hit 4:20-4:30 per mile and have to attempt two months with no run slower than 5:15 pace. So ask yourself, what is it about PAAVO that brings success? Attempting to do PAAVO training does not make you stupid, but simply taking it as an all-or-nothing proposition and never trying to understand it does. I think the long and short pre-season tempos are a great structure, and I use them myself. Also the lack of emphasis on tapering has led to good results for me, as well as others.

PAAVO followers do tend to be somewhat cult-like, which only leads to animosity on both sides, and hinders an actual discussion of the training principles involved.

Damn, good post.

This is an excellent post. My coach and I just had a similar discussion about tailoring the program to your needs. All of what you said is logical and is right in line to what we were leaning towards after I get the first phase of the "base mileage" over with

Good Stuff.

Usher wrote:

Too bad, you might learn something...:)

Go to Paavo and see if it works for you. The margins for error are too narrow for me, and their "one size fits all" method doesn't seem to work well with all groups. I know some schools that have had fleeting success with Paavo when they have talented teams, but when their talent dries up they are truly awful.

So if the SLC coach were to listen to you espouse a program that is not as successful as the one he uses, I might learn something? I see logic is not your strong suit. Tell me you got four kids to FL in the last three years.

This is why Paavo works: Back when we ran fast thirty years ago, we ran hard a lot. We didn't run E runs or I runs or have pace charts until the Purdy tables came out. When those came out, the workouts were HARD. The Purdy book also recommended running hard on a daily basis. Aside from that, we just ran hard almost all the time and also ran a truckload of miles. Then Runners World et al came in and told us to slow down, so we did... in training and racing. Go figure! So now one kid in the last 30 years is in the all time top four for the mile. The 2 mile record hasn't been touched. While the world records have dropped precipitously in the last thirty years, American records are pretty stagnant in the distance events. Swimmers and cyclists, American athletes who have success on the world scene, go hard every day. Runners want to jog a lot. So they do and then celebrate wildly with the success of simply making a world final. Paavo works because it tells the athlete it's ok to run hard. I've seen Newton's workouts and they go hard a hell of a lot too. Paavo isn't special aside from the fact that it let's kids run hard twice as much as a more modern day conventional runner. If you want 0 kids going to the National championships, follow Usher. If you want 4, you don't have to do Paavo but you better better tell your kids to stop jogging.

"A race is all go and no blow, so why practice resting?"

And the Woodlands coach, Danny Green, (among others) has had similar levels of success - just on a greater scale - using the Vigil method. If PAAVO is so great, then why does SLC not see greater team success in cc?

Excellent posting, now we are finally getting somewhere with this posting

Thanks East Coach2 for the history lesson and "thinking outside the box" blog, I appreciate it.

mrkooter

Because the theory and logic of the program is per individual...not every kid is going to WANT TO or FEEL THE NEED to continue the program.

Come on, we all know that in high school we can find a reason NOT TO WANT TO RUN a 12 mile run, let a lone a 8 PPM...seriously, "only the weak will fall and the strong shall prevail."

And the more individuals one can coach to improvement, the better team one will have. That should not be difficult to figure out. If two succeed greatly and five do not, how can that be considered greater than or even as good as what coaches have been doing implementing Vigil methods? Do what you wish, but it honestly does not seem that you came here for a genuine, honest discussion of the drawbacks of the program along with the upside of it.

All I stated was the genuine THEORY of the program. I'm doing my research on it, I don't just speak about what I THINK.

Ideally, yes you want a team of 5-7 to do the program, however it just doesn't happen all the time.

No one said that this program was the greatest or even as good as any other program. In fact, all running programs are based on the same concept to some extent. Build a base, build endurance, fast intervals, lactic tolerance...tailor training to your needs and pains if any...its ok to flex a program, it doesn't make you a bad person

Don't read so much into this, I'm not presenting any bias opinions, just research online, speaking to people IN PERSON who've done it and this blog thing

Chilax, we all love to run and helping each other is a good thing

Sonny boy, I was COACHING 30 years ago, so don't tell me the obvious. And I don't have to defend it against some know-it-all like you who wouldn't recognize true success if it bit you on the ass.

And I've coached national qualifers in a state that does a very poor job of supporting distance running. If I'd been allowed to work with athletes directly in the off-season like they can in Texas (how nice it would be to be able to work with your athletes year-round during an athletic period instead of losing kids each year doing jackassery in PE class).

mrkooter wrote:

Ideally, yes you want a team of 5-7 to do the program, however it just doesn't happen all the time.

It happens more often that you might care to believe. Do not speak of that which you do not know, there were several Vigil-influenced programs in the top US high school ranks this past year. Use PAAVO if you feel like making that gamble and overlooking methods which have greater rates of success.

I do believe you. DO I CARE RIGHT NOW IN LIFE AT 26 years old, NO. I'm glad you know of SEVERAL VIGIL influenced programs, honestly thats great.

Gambling with a running program, sure, just like any other program.

I am one, single man who wants to follow a rigorous program for a while and tailor it eventually to my goal. I have no team, no regionals, no state championship,, no HS records to break.

I am extremely happy to hear everyones posts here because it just helps me understand why people dislike Paavo and why others like it. It honestly just gives me more motivation to do good in this training.

And NO ONE, NO ONE has said that PAAVO is the answer to becoming a world record holder, which is great because I dont want to be one. I'm looking for that. I'm not looking for anyone to say DO IT DO IT DO IT! If you dislike it, just explain why. If you have proof, great. If you've done it and hated it, fine, explain.

And so far people have. Good stuff. I hope this continues

I do believe you. DO I CARE RIGHT NOW IN LIFE AT 26 years old, NO. I'm glad you know of SEVERAL VIGIL influenced programs, honestly thats great.

Gambling with a running program, sure, just like any other program.

I am one, single man who wants to follow a rigorous program for a while and tailor it eventually to my goal. I have no team, no regionals, no state championship,, no HS records to break.

I am extremely happy to hear everyones posts here because it just helps me understand why people dislike Paavo and why others like it. It honestly just gives me more motivation to do good in this training.

And NO ONE, NO ONE has said that PAAVO is the answer to becoming a world record holder, which is great because I dont want to be one. I'm not looking for that. If you dislike it, just explain why. If you have proof, great. If you've done it and loved it/hated it, fine, explain.

And so far people have. Good stuff. I hope this continues

Sorry if the obvious conclusion is lost on you. I have no reason to dislike PAAVO, in fact I wish that all of my competition would use it. ;)

Good luck! Have fun!

[quote]GTF wrote:

Sorry if the obvious conclusion is lost on you.

The obvious conclusion eh? I'm not even going to comment on your lil insult poke of my intelligence. I'm glad you have no reason to dislike Paavo.

Thanks I will have fun, because I love kicking my own ass. I'm a Finn, we like do this to ourselves from time to time in life

mrkooter wrote:

I'm not even going to comment on your lil insult poke of my intelligence.

Too late, and who said anything about your intelligence besides you? You clearly enjoy talking about yourself, so carry on.

LOL you're right and I will do as I please, THANKS FOR LETTING ME, I APPLAUD YOUR APPROVAL

turd.

Do you usually fail to comprehend?

Grow up.

its pretty bad when it comes down to trying to explain WHO I AM and WHAT I AM trying to accomplish.

Enjoy talking about myself? seriously. That is about as dumb as the comment from the toolbag calling me a liar.

No one enjoys explaining themselves, but it has obviously been needed with the amount of people who dont GRASP that I'm not a HS kid.

Grow up and figure out how to make a real insult to someone. Once again I will state, I am trying to learn this program.

Carry on?? gimme a break, how about you move on to a different forum and have cool lil insult arguments with the 8th graders.