Long runs are highly overrated

"I'm too busy to post a point by point response to all you morons, but see the post of coop, which can be found on the preceeding page.

By the way, not a damn one of you has produced any proof to back up your pathetic drivel."

How about countless posts of docymented evidence

If you bothered to read any of Lydiard's books

(e.g. "Run to the Top") you would see that he

recommends one 2-2 1/2 hour run and two 1 1/2 hour

runs per week during the base training phase and

talks repeatedly about the 20-22 mile runs

he had Snell and many others do every week.

dunes runner,

I just finished reading Lydiard's book "Run to the Top" and Snell's book "No Bugles, No Drums". They both describe the 22 mile weekly runs that Lydiard prescribes. I thought everyone knew about the Lydiard system. I see that I am wrong. When I have time, I'll go through Lydiard's book and find the specific areas that talk about the 22 miler and post them here.

DougC

In chapter 2 of "No Bugles, No Drums", Snell (1:44 800m PR)says this about training with Lydiard:

"I was deeply conscious of my shortcomings because a certain line of Arthur's advice was in my mind. It still sticks there today. He said that in his opinion when I got distance running under my belt so comfortably that I could run a hard Waiatarua and still feel like going round again - then I would be ready for anything in the world. Since the Waiatarua is a soul-searching 22-miler through the steep and densely bushed Waitakere Ranges, it seemed a remote and improbable objective in my initial distance-running days."

Then later in the book he describes his build-up to the Rome Olympics where he won gold in the 800.

"On Mayday I ran my first Waiatarua and the 2.5 hours it took me showed a great deal of promise."

"Murray, with whom I ran the Waiatarua fairly frequently at this time..."

"I did three weeks of hill training and noted that a pattern of performance was emerging in which, while my work during the week was spasmodic, I was able to knock out a good Waiatarua every weekend."

Later he says:

"With the Europe tour a certainty, I now dashed into another crash programme. My training had been patchy but I'd put in some solid runs round Waiatarua and I felt much better physically and mentally than I had two or three months earlier."

It is also noteworthy that the aformentioned "Murray", another Lydiard trained athlete won the 5000 at the 1960 Rome Olympics.

From "Run to the Top" by Lydiard:

He has a 5000m training schedule on pages 75-77. The Sunday workout is listed below:

"Sunday: Run twenty miles evenly at quarter-effort"

After 4 weeks of the tweny mile Sunday run, he then calls for his 5000m runners to "Run two hours evenly" each Sunday from weeks 5 through week 8.

I trust this increases your understanding of the Lydiard system.

As this is an open forum, we must keep in mind that we can not expect to convince everyone of our opinions. That being said, 1 hour ago I finished the first 20 miler of my base building phase. I intend to do this weekly until the beginning of March. I would like to thank Run Fast Not Long for starting this thread because as the fear built up over my impending jaunt, I found many of the comments here extremely motivating, convincing me that I was doing the right thing.

Best of luck to you all whether you choose to run long, or short.

Monty

HRE wrote:

I'm reminded of a quote from Rob DeCastella that went something like, "A lot of guys will go to the track for an hour and run really hard and say that's as good as running for two hours because they ran really fast. But you can't substitute running fast for running far. Many runners look for reasons to avoid two to three hour training runs because they're bloody hard."

Derek Clayton:

"The most important goal of competitive training is quality training.

"I would rather have run ten miles in fifty-two minutes than twenty in 2 1/4 hours."

Hmmm Khalid K ... Derek Clayton ... Jim Peters ... pretty good company here.

And these are marathoners. Not milers.

dunes runner,

KK runs long runs during his buildup phase. The fact that he doesn't run more than 13 miles during the final 4 weeks is because he is tapering. This year he raced the Philly Distance Run (13.1 miles) exactly 4 weeks before the Chicago Marathon. Then I'm sure he began his taper.

Do you now at least admit that Lydiard's athletes ran the aforementioned 22 miler? Will you at least admit that it worked for Snell, Halberg, etc?

I'm done on this topic.

DougC

I have four of Lydiard's books including the original "Run To the Top". I have seen him speak twice and talked with him once. I have Murray Halberg's book "A Clean Pair of Heels", and have read Snell's book. I have Derek Clayton's book, two of Joan Benoit's books, two by Grete Waitz, etc etc etc. So what.

DougC wrote:

In chapter 2 of "No Bugles, No Drums", Snell (1:44 800m PR)says this about training with Lydiard:

"I was deeply conscious of my shortcomings because a certain line of Arthur's advice was in my mind. It still sticks there today. He said that in his opinion when I got distance running under my belt so comfortably that I could run a hard Waiatarua and still feel like going round again - then I would be ready for anything in the world."

Snell got distance running under his belt comfortably, so "then" he could run the 22 miles. Not the other way around. You need to read your own quotations.

The fact they ran the 22 milers is just how they happened to put together their schedules. However they were also NOT high mileage runners. Snells highest week was barely over 100 miles. Halberg averaged about 50 long term.

There are many World Record holders who did not do the long runs. Greta Waitz first broke the WR when she'd never run farther than 12 miles before that. Steve Jones broke the WR when he'd only run as far as 20 miles one time before that. And Jones ran 70 to 100 miles a week but all if it high quality. Jim Peters broke the WR 4 times and did not do long runs.

"Snell got distance running under his belt comfortably, so "then" he could run the 22 miles. Not the other way around."

Not quite. He ran the 22 milers (and yes, built up to it) so he could maximize the use of the tools he naturally had. You see, the point of the training is to RACE well WHEN YOU NEED TO.

PS- You really think Halberg ran 50/week? Yeah, after the 22 miler on Sunday, he ran 28 miles for the ramaining 6 days.

Dunes Runner,

Despite the Clayton quote, he ran long. I've seen reprints of some of his sessions and he ran long, by most people's standards, almost daily.

All of the fast New Zealand milers, Snell, Davies, Walker, Quax followed Lydiard and did long runs. Your original post implied that because the Lydiard quote didn't refer specifically to long runs, the runs weren't there. Now you're essentially doing the same thing with Clayton, taking a single quote as "evidence" despite a larger body of countering evidence.

Vananna - Yes, Halberg averaged about 50 miles a week long term. That is a direct quotation from him in his book.

HRE - I have talked with Clayton, have his book and have his training schedule from his notebook. His emphasis was on high mileage and quality consistency. Not long runs.

You'll notice the proponents of long runs in the average don't run as high of mileage. This is because the long runs are too training and hurt their training. So they need to cut back and recover, but with a lower total mileage and training effect than they would have otherwise.

Finally, someone who speaks with some sense, class and intellect instead of spewing something that's been crammed down their throats.

And what of the physiological benefits of the long run?

I see the 100 miles a week. Where is the long run?

Still no long run. Though Lydiard is exaggerating to make his point. Everyone surely needs anaerobic AND aerobic development.

Right. So where's the long run?

As you clearly state above, you want to know where the long run is. I have quoted you from both Lydiard and Snell about the weekly 22 milers.

Additionally, this thread is not about total mileage, it is discussing the benefit of the long run. Fact is, Snell, Halberg, Davies, Steve Scott, Holman, Geb, Ryun, etc. ALL ran long runs. Lydiard claims that his runners ran in excess of 100 miles per week. Perhaps his memory if failing and he is mistaken.

Your anaerobic development is a limited factor - you can't turn all your blood into lactic acid. But these people didn't realize that if we're going to improve our performance level, we've got to improve our endurance, our ability to withstand higher oxygen debts and not get tired.

-Isn't the point of a long run to train the body not to get into higher oxygen debts? No necessarily withstand higher oxygen debts (i.e. ANAEROBIC training?

somebody find me a DI XC All-American who doesn't do long runs...

Why doesn't "Run fast not long" post his PRs and progression to back up his point.

I can post mine to prove that long runs help....lets see yours.

Dunes Runner, you're one up on me if you've spoken to Clayton. But I've got his "Running to the Top" here and there's a photocopy of a page from his diary. He shows PM runs of 15,18,17,16,18,13,18,17,17,17,16,30,12,18,17,18,17,16,27, etc. with AM runs of 5 to 14 miles. So either the photocopied diary is a misrepresentation of how he normally trained or you and I have really different definitions of what a long run is. If you run a 15-18 mile run every day, you may not regard it as a "long" run anymore. But even then there's a 30 and a 27 in there.

Does this account conflict much from what you've seen or heard from Clayton?