Lydiard Question

You can do the high milage, the key is being carefull to pace things. ''It is the pace not the distince that will get you early''-Lydiard

SolRichards wrote:

You can do the high milage, the key is being carefull to pace things. ''It is the pace not the distince that will get you early''-Lydiard

Ah yea, but seriously how many of you have actually gone out and done 22mile runs every week - it seems a little insane to me, but then ive never run longer than 2hrs.

doggie say:

>now i want to shoot for 7 days a week running bny summer and would love to hit 90mpw - but is this too soon to fast looking at past years?<

Who can say doggman, learn to listen to your body. The most important thing is to be very consistent with your running.

If you are recovered from this recurring injury you should have no problems.

"Ah yea, but seriously how many of you have actually gone out and done 22mile runs every week - it seems a little insane to me, but then ive never run longer than 2hrs"

As american distance running continues on its steady decline.....

I am taking up this program. Heres my stats today:

Mile: 4:40s

1500: 4:20s

8kXC: 31:00s

5kRoad: high 17s

So I suck. We'll see what building up to 100 a week on singles does for me, with 5 months of buildup before XC season next year.

This all depends on your previous running experience. If you have been running for 4 years and are around 70 now, then yes it is possible although it will take months to acclimate to hard runs while at that level well enough to race successfully. If you havent held over 60 for at least 2 months before, dont even try it. I would personally recommend increasing 20% of your mileage at the MAX.

Best of luck to you. I'm about at the same level and I'm gonna give it a shot after outdoor. My guess is itll be quite hard for the first few months, but once you adapt, youll reap huge benefits, espicially if you were on a significantly lower mileage program before.

Here's a suggestion for you guys who are trying to go the Lydiard route and do 100 in singles. Remember that he didn't train everyone the same way. There are people who trained with him who didn't get to 100. There are people who trined with him who got to 100 but not in singles.

If you want to get the basics of the build-up phase, make getting in at least one two hour run (minimum length, 2:30 is good too) and a couple 90 minute runs (minimum, 1:45-2:00 is ok too) and get in some respectable mileage on the other days, in either one or two runs. Preferably, you'd go for at least an hour in the main session.

Also remember that for many years now, Arthur has said that the one change he'd make in his method is having people run for time rather than distance and he's been recommending the sort of base schedule I just gave. So you might focus on getting in a minimum of 9 hours in singles rather than on a specific number of miles. You need not be limited to 9 hours.

HRE:

YOU have the best post on this thread. Lydiard has said for 50 years now that running for a certain amount of time is what good training is about.

Let's break it down and compare different runners.

Jane runs 7 minute pace for the 5km.

Lisa runs 6 minute pace for the 5km.

Mary run 5 minute pace for the 5km.

Jane tries to run 15 miles, because the 100-mile per week schedule says that is what she should do today. She runs 2:00 per miles slower than her 5km pace, so she chugs along at 9:00 per mile for 15 miles, taking 2 hours 15 minutes to get in her average-day run. Her short day of the week is 10 miles which takes her 90 minutes. Her long run, 22 miles, takes her 3 hours 18 minutes to complete. It takes her 900 minutes per week or 15 hours to run 100 miles. I repeat, she is running for 15 hours per week, which is a lot.

Lisa run 8:00 pace on her runs, also 2:00 per mile over 5km race pace. It takes her 120 minutes (2 hours) to run her 15 miler, 80 minutes to run her short day 10 miler, and 176 minutes to run a 22 mile long run; nearly 3 hours. Her total time for per week is 800 minutes or 13 hours 20 minutes.

Mary runs 7 minute pace for her distance work, taking 1 hour 45 minutes to run 15 miles, her average length run, 70 minutes for her shortest run of the week, and 154 minutes or a little over 2.5 hours for her weekly 22 miler. All in all, she runs 700 minutes or 11 hour 40 minutes each week to get in the required 100 miles.

The time differences spent on their feet for the above runners is enormous, from a stastical standpoint. The number of steps that the slowest person takes to run the 100 miles is in the neighborhood of 30-35% more than the fastest runner.

Can you see the potential for injury here? That is why Lydiard advises runners to build to a certan time and then as they get fitter they will run more miles in that time. He knows that not everyone can run 100 miles per week. Only fast runners can in the time frames he has suggested. Ask Kim Stevenson, a respected coach in New Zealand, and he will tell you that Arthur trains everyone diffently.

OUR biggest problem in training relates to one simple fact: we think that everybody can succeed by doing the same workouts, same mileage, same intensity. It is not true, nor will it ever be true. Following principles is what it is all about. Learn the principles and learn about yourself. Use templates that are reasonable and systematic and then refine them as you test yourself using them. The best training plan is yours, the one that works to your innate talents and strengths. This is why Malmo says that you should capitalize on your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses.

I need some sleep. I am rambling. Tinman

Awesome post to the both of you. As far as I can see, you have nailed the hammer right on the head. But I also think that for alot of the people who are going to try the Lydiard way, are people who are fairly decent runners, i.e. probably 5:00/mile 5k runners or there about (thats a very bad assumption)... we'll just say pretty athletic and competative people. With that being said I think that 100 mpw isn't that bad of a benchmark. But then again as you have astutely pointed out, everyone can not do the same workouts, because everyone's body willl respond in a different manner. ANyway, good posts, cheers.

"When Peter Snell started the program, he could not complete his first attempts at the 22 mile long run and had to be picked up by Lydiard. His first completed run took over 3 hours. Without any additional effort he knocked off chunks of 5 to 10 minutes each week and eventually got down to sub 2:10."

Enough Said.

It truly amazes me how everyone wants to discourage other runners from jacking up thier mileage and making a go of it. I don't care about the exact mileage that Lydiard wrote down. I am going to have to modify certain days for the reason that my track team meets to run once or twice a week anyway. What I am sticking to is the mileage.

The fact of the matter is this: If I can't handle the 100 mile weeks, if I try it three or four times and get injured every time, thats fine. Then at least I will have known that I could never be a world class runner.

-I am NOT in this sport to run local 5ks for the rest of my life.

-I am NOT in this sport to become a training rat.

-I am NOT in this sport to train 70 a week, make it to regionals and nationals my third and fourth year, and never really compete there.

-I AM in this sport to WIN.

So I am going to give it a go. Don't try to preach your rationalize your lower mileage training schemes to me now. I have already made up my mind to look at what the best have done, and train like them.

The most mileage I ever averaged in one year was 55 and that was 6 years ago. My highest weeks mileage ever was 75 and that was one week 6 years ago. In between 6 years ago and December 2 of 2003 I ran a TOTAL of maybe 3000 miles. I would run 30 mile a week for 4 months and then stop for the rest of the year, usually ran right before and through summer to keep some weight off. On December 2 I decided to give serious training one more shot at 28yrs old. I have follwed the Lydiard system very closely and have found it so far to be very beneficial. Going from 0 to 100mpw wasn't hard at all you just have to go slow for the first ten weeks. Yes my first 22 mile run hurt, @ 143 beats per minute it took 2:36 the second took 2:36 the third 2:30 and this past sunday it took 2:26 all at the course and same effort 143 beats per minute. All of my runs not just sundays have improved at the same rate. Just my two cents.

With all due respect to HRE, precisely the same point about time-per-run was made on this thread two days ago.

I'm not sure I get your point. you don't care about the exact mileage Lydiard wrote down, you're going to have to modify what you do on certain days anyway. Ok, but if doing all that changes what you're doing from what Snell or Baillie did, then you're not really doing what the best have done. I really don't follow your point.

I'm certainly the last person to push low mileage schemes. But I have worked with Arthur and know that he doesn't advocate everyone doing what his guys from the 60s did verbatim, (not that you could because they did different things whil following the same principles.)

When he was advising me, the base schedule he suggested was much like I outlined; one 2 hour run, two or three 90s and other runs of an hour or so. He did suggest getting to 100 a week for a while, but knew that I'd never get to that number at my speed, or lack thereof, on the above schedule. So he suggested adding a second session, especially on the one hour days, to get the total distance up.

That's essentially what I'm suggesting here. Get the long runs in and fill in the miles on other days in the way that works best for you. 100 mpw is a very good benchmark, in my opinion, whether it's reached on singles, doubles, or a combination.

As with most things, Arthur's system works best if you understand the principles behind it and apply them to your own situation and I'm suggesting that people do that, rather than semi-blindly copying a set of numbers.

Tinman, nice post yourself.

XCMan_<----stolen name wrote:

"Ah yea, but seriously how many of you have actually gone out and done 22mile runs every week - it seems a little insane to me, but then ive never run longer than 2hrs"

As american distance running continues on its steady decline.....

First of all im not american, im Irish. Secondly my question still stands, how many of you have actually tried running 22mile runs every week? Only one person has posted saying that they have - i mean its all good and well writing down mileage goals on a piece of paper but actually going out and doing it is another thing altogether. All i have to go on are 2hr runs where i managed to get in about 15miles & was shatterd after it - not sore but really tired (which is not neccessarily a bad thing) - but for me to run 22miles, id have to be out for about 3hrs and i reckon that would be quite difficult. So I want to know if anyone has tried it and their opinion on it. I'd go out and try it myself but its the wrong time of the year to be doing that sort of thing

Well, anyone can run 22 mile runs every week. Can anyone run 22 mile runs every week after already having done 88 at moderate aerobic efforts? That's another story. Taking one part of the cake and looking only at it messes up the whole mix. You might end up with egg on your face.

And, no, I haven't run 22 milers every week for months on end.

I acknowledge some of you wanting to get to 100, like some magical thing will going to happen. Good things can happen if you STAY at it, but a lot of you seem to be quite low in milage, so I don't think your a natural distance runner, so your going to feel some big fatigue and be bored from time to time. Think of once a runner and the rookie discovering dentons secret. Stay at it you will adapt, but you are in for an eye opening experience.

b

About milage, the fact of the matter is that the more miles/time you run. Unless you overload your body the better your going to race. This is due to the simple fact that your body is start to get better at going about the crebs cycle. You are can do so at a higher rate, and get more kenetic power out of the cycle. So miles will make a runner better that is a fact.

About the Lyidard training, he favors training for time. This is a fact, and come's from the fact that looking at things he had done for years he realized that time is a much more precise way to giveing the runners of verying levels the same workload. He is clear that 100 miles is the goal for a runner who is at the peak of there bodys level of fitnesss. But for most people it is better to have then hit 10hr or so of training a week. Since unless your raceing at near 4min mile pace, running six min miles is going to be very hard when you have to do 100 a week.

About the 22 mile runs, yes they are hard. But anyone can do them, as long as they have the right mind set. Running is not an easy sport, and sometimes you have to train in a way that hurts. But keep in mind, that unless your hitting your 22 mile runs in under 3hr, then even Lyidard would say that you need to run less on your long day. 3hr is according to hem the max amout of time you should run all at once.

Alright, to get this time thing clear, he advocates something like a long run of 2-3 hours, 2 90 minute or so medium distance runes, and an hour+ the rest? Also, what did lydiard have to say about down weeks with lower mileage once every month or so?