PAAVO system of training...

I might have more experience with the PAAVO system than anyone here (high school and college programs) so I feel qualified to make the following comments/suggestions:

1. There have been successes (HS state champions both individual and team in MI, IN, etc)

2. Those who succeed without injury usually tend to be not the stereotypical runner physique but more mesomorphic. Could be because frail skinny bodies are prone to injury.

Things I would change:

1. Make the PPMs tempo runs.

2. Make the all-out mile a short speed sessions (200s, 300s...)

3. Limit one Slow Interval session, one Pace Interval session per week, plus race. No more 4 or 5 (or 6 or 7 for that matter) hard days a week.

The problems with the system always have been the amount of intensity. The workouts themselves aren't bad, it's the shear number and that's not even including the third interval sessions (Fast Intervals) which can be added toward the end of the season. Fast intervals are shorter faster versions of Pace Intervals. I can remember my senior year running 5 or 6 hard days a week leading up to the state meet. Fun stuff.

Alan

Also, I don't remember anywhere it stating the easy runs were 90 seconds slower than mile pace. All the literature I've seen states 45 seconds per mile slower than PPM pace. The camps themselves are very nice and go into pretty good detail about aerobic and anaerobic systems and whatnot. I have no idea how Sellers came up with this stuff, but would love to know if anyone has the info?

Alan

i like your modifaction alan but with the modifications, its no longer paavo! ppms will build up heavy lactic acid, tempo runs will not. the mile time trial is an all out run, 200s or 300s fit more on the line of anaerobic power. your modifcactions are what most top coaches suggest for high level, developed athletes. paavo however, is vastly different.

I have attended a paavo camp along with some of my teammates and I don't think it is a good program. of the four of us one wound up with an IT band problem that sidelined him for two weeks after the camp. one ended up burnt out by the state meet, he placed top fifteen his junior year and was state runner up in the 2 mile for track, and didn't even make all state that year. one of us was injured most of the season and the other didn't even make the varsity after being on it as a freshman. I remember that we did a hard workout everyday where we would end up racing and the last day we did a runathon which in my opinion is the stupidest idea ever. after racing once a day for five days we were supposed to complete five races in a row (one timed mile, two eight hundreds, one thousand meter hill, and one two mile race) for a t shirt. also the one runner on our team from the last years top five that didn't go to paavo ended up the state champ. so in my experience i don't think paavo is very helpful even in the short term

Sellers came up with the ideas based on a combination of Lydiard, Daniels and his own coaching experiences.

As for the 90 seconds, you are correct, it does state 45 seconds per mile above your mile pace. However, if you utilize the 90 second per mile rule, you will not have that dreaded feeling of not wanting to run and it will allow you to recover for the the PPMs.

As for being the person who has done it the longest, I beg to differ. Unless you have done it or been a part of it for 14 years or more, then I have you beat.

Swoosh2- Are you a coach now and do you use the Paavo System of training? My take on the PPM's is that they are basically tempo runs at a given pace based on the timed mile.....ex...timed mile of 5:08 would yield a PPM potential pace of 6:00....if a person runs the 6:00 pace on either of the PPM(tempo) runs then that persons recovery runs would be at around a 6:45 pace...that does not seem to fast to me and is very reasonable by all research standards. What do you think....agree or disagree....won't hurt my feelings! :)

Gebfan,

I am an assistant coach now and have used the Paavo system for myself (the head coach uses a Jack Daniels system).

You are correct, the mile on saturday is what all the rest is based off of (the ppms, the intervals in season, etc.).

There are pace charts that I have from clinics and camps that outline the the progression. For example.

If I run 4:44 mile on Saturday, My LPPM potential (10 mile ppm) is right around 5:20-5:25 pace. I have come close to that, hitting 5:29 pace for 10 miles in a race.

Technically, the CT pace is based on my PPM potential, so in this case, it would be 6:15 ppm on my easy days. I normally do around 6:00-6:45 on my easy days, so that fits within that range.

With the Paavo program, like any program, you have to understand that it isnt set in stone. These are guidelines and you can be a strict person who adheres to every single detail--for those OCD types out there or you can work with your athletes and mold it to them. bottom line, everybody is going to be different in the program and should be treated accordingly.

for example, If you have two guys who are doing the program, and one has a mile of 4:44 and the other at 4:32, their interval ranges (70-72 and 67-69 respectively) will be different, as will their PPM potential. They should be able to train close together, but they wont be exactly the same and shouldnt be coached to be exactly the same. Hope that makes sense.

Gebfan, if you would like to talk more in depth email me.

How would you compare the two systems and their results? Which system is easier to use when setting up workouts and which one yields more predictable race times?

Gebfan,

I think that the Paavo system is more predictable because there is more repetition within the workouts, both in season and out of season. With a 100% daniels approach, there can be too much competition during the workouts because everybody is trying to be in the front pack.

With the Paavo system, you only get to move up to the front pack if you get faster with your mile time and then graduate to a higher volume of intervals and then you can put in more miles. What causes quite a few problems with people misinterpreting the Paavo system is the idea that everybody has to be at the same mileage to achieve results. That notion is a load of crap. The volume of intervals those two guys (the 4:32 and 4:44 guy from earlier) are doing is based on the mileage that they did during the PPM phase. If the 4:32 guy only worked up to 60 miles a week (with a 3 mile sppm on Tuesday and 7mi lppm on Thursday), and the 4:44 guy got up to 80 (with 4mi ppm on Tuesday and 10 mile ppm on Thursday), During the season, the 4:44 would be doing more intervals--at his pace range--than the 4:32 guy.

That said, I like both systems because they have similarities but If I could train one way, I would do it with the Paavo system, because of its consistency. I started out with the system running a 23:45 5k. I have since worked and gotten to 15:58 5k and a 33:09 10k. My mile was/is 4:44. I have been lucky to have had only two injuries and have come back fine from both of them.

Email me with specific questions if you would like.

If the 4:44 mile person were to run a LPPM of 10miles wouldn't his LSI be 10x400 and his HSI be 14x400...the volume of 400's and the pace of the 400's would be determined by the length and speed of the last LPPM? Is this correct?

THANKS :)

you are correct,but the the volume of the 400's would also be determined by mileage. I was the 4:44 guy and I did 12x400 on my LSI days and 16x400 on my HSI days. when I got to the point where I came in with more base, I did 16x400 and 20x400. You know this already, but I had to be in my range (70-72) on all of my HSI days before I could convert to less rest. I made it to the 800m intervals, but never farther than that.

What was your LPPM run that allowed you to go to 12x400/16x400.....then what allowed you to jump to 16x400/20x400.......I always thought the original starting place for SI's was based on the actual length of the Last LPPM....Ex...if I run a 10 mile LPPM then I would start with 10x400 on a LSI day and then 14x400 on a HSI day? If I bump my mileage up to say 70-80 miles would I be able to do more SI's regardless of what the LPPM is just so long as I don't go out of my BU/LD base on the HSI DAY?? Did you understand any of what I just asked?? :)

When did you know it was time to move to the 800 SI's...did you make the move to 800's when you could no longer cut rest on the 400's??

Swoosh2, I stand corrected. 14 years is quite a long time. I can remember coming into a season in high school with 80-90 miles during the summer and a 10 mile ppm and doing 20x400 LSI during a hot August day. That was the last day I ever did 20x400. Me and coach decided it would be better to stick with the 12-16x400/6-8x800. Doing the extra mile's worth just seemed like too much. I'll try to e-mail you later. I enjoyed the program, but found it to lead to extreme calf stiffness and an eventual achilles problem when I tried to adapt it to the half-marathon. I changed the SI to 1600s (SSI 3x1600, LSI 5x1600) and kept the Pace intervals the same.

Alan

Evil Paavo wrote:

Sad?? Her story is sad? She is not a success story? How? Because she won most of her HS races, her conference meet and was all-state? Who are you to state that she has the potential to run anywhere from 18's to 16's. Based on what? What I've said here on an internet forum? Please. I'm no expert, but after a year, you should see some decrease in time, not a steady increase. And don't tell me it is because of Paavo. She had plenty of time to adjust to the college coach's program and it didn't work for her. Or the other 5 non-Paavo girls. And if you had read carefully, you would have noticed that I said she is back to 19's with half the effort she had to put forth for her 21's in college.

Voice of reason said it very well. I too had two lackluster years in a college - in a program probably very similar (I think of my college program as lydiard-esque). At a few points I probably ran slower than high school (I was a 19 - 20 minute runner in high school). I stuck with it, and by my junior year I had a major breakthrough, and PR'd in my next two years running a sub 17 minute 5k and getting all-american 3x. It took patience, work, and a focus on the long term. Physiologically, I believe it was b/c I maximized my aerobic system (which takes time)in a program that emphasized longer runs, higher end aerobic running, longer repeats, and gradual increases in mileage.

Your daughter has had much sucess in a short amount of time. She is a success. (I did not mean to offend you - she is your daughter). But disappointing that she will stay running a 19 minute 5k. Can she run faster - ABSOLUTELY!!! I'd put my hard earned cash on it.(A compliment to your daughter, not paavo). She ran 19's off of 2 years of cross and an under-developed aerobic system. Imagine what she could do when you beef up her heart, lungs, capillaries, and mitochondria, w/ a stronger emphasis on aerobic running and reducing the amount of high intensity anaerobic and AT running.

I believe truly that runners can run at their peak after a good 10 years of running, and women can continue to max their aerobic abilities well into their 30's. This is given that they attend to long term aerobic development. I base this on my own running experiences, coaching, and reading a crap load on the physiology of endurance training. There do not seem to be any magic formula's.

For more info on some really great principles of training - check out the jk speak part of this page.

I understand. I did a 10 mile PPM, but my coach moved me up in volume to the 16x400--20x400. I only did the 20x400 two or three times, as it was a bit much for me at the time. I normally did 12x400 and 16x400, like the other poster, Alan did. I made the progression like this--

I did 16x 400 (sets of 4x400 with 800 jog rest, after the fourth one, I did a 1600 then started a new set). Once I hit the target times for all 16 of the 400's, I got to convert to less rest. in this case, I still did 16x400, but had 600 between the intervals and 1200 between the sets.

I converted two more times, the next time to 400 rest between the intervals and 800 between the sets, and then when I did that, I converted to 800m intervals.

My HSI day would be 8x800 with 800 rest between the intervals and 1600 between the sets. The sets would be 2x800 with 800 rest and then a 1600 in between the sets.

I was always told that you should never go over 4miles for your SPPM or longer than 10miles for your LPPM. If you get to those points during one off season, then you would do 10 and 14x400. Your next off season, if you progress to the 4mi and 10mi then you could move up to the 12 and 16x400, provided that you had enough mileage base to back it up (minimum of 60 miles for the 10 and 14x400 and minimum of 70miles to do 12 and 16x400).

Hopefully that helps a bit. Just out of curiosity, where are you in the country and how long have you been using the system?

Great info Swoosh2 and I appreciate it. I thought that is what you would do for moving to the 800's but wanted to make sure!

I live in Texas and have been using the program since 1997....we great results!

It couldn't have been because she'd already reached a performance plateau because of the anaerobic-heavy training she did in high school, could it?

So, you're suggesting that a college degree is mutually exclusive to running the best that you can at that age?

Then has Lydiard ever given his blessing or endorsement to the PAAVO system?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

swoosh2 wrote:

Ok, I have had enough with the bashing. True, there are many systems out there. If you look at the sources for the Paavo system, they are Lydiard and Jack Daniels--both well respected coaches of distance runners.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so maybe I never really understood Paavo training, but even though I understand that Paavo still develops a base, when I put Lydiard's schedules from his books next to the schedules that I have been given/seen/put together from what I know about Paavo, it looks to me that Paavo runners are running A LOT HARDER EARLIER and MORE OFTEN than Lydiard's long, aerobic and fartlek buildup.

Can someone chime in on whether this is correct or not?