LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Still a great thread in spite of recent trollism. Dr Daniels please ignore the trolls.

Hey mikeinboston!

John S, you are a follower of Coe / Martin, perhaps? 4k max total for "anaerobic capacity" etc. Yes, 6x1000m MUST be "aerobic capacity" in their eyes.

However....Moorcroft was a huge fan of intense runs with lots of rest. And year round too! Typically 5x1000m with 7min rest, in well under 2:30, or 10x300m with 3min rest in sub 40. I don't believe I ever saw short recovery or cruisy speed in his training logs. Could we perhaps discuss this, and its place (if any?) in Daniels or Lydiard ideals? Was Moorcroft "unique" in this regard?

Indeed, Moorcroft did not take short rest between his 1000s, 600, 300s on the track (he only ran on the track once per week, normally). He ran them at about max VO2 velocity which is a little faster than 3k pace and used rests that were about 3 times as long as the rep run. This was the staple philosophy of training that his coach, John Anderson, used for years (since 1963, at least). Anderson was the one who designed "multi-pacing" training in Britain long before Horwill was on the scene and claiming that he (Horwill) came up with it. One of the reasons that John prescribed long reps was because his runners, like Moorcroft, were competing often (Moorcroft competed at least 40-60 times per year). John recognized that short recoveries prevented runners from going fast. I think a second benefit of the longer recoveries is that it prevented premature peaking. Short rests do that; peak you soon. * I actually think that Alf Shrub was the father of milti-pacing training, but then we'd have to say that everybody else learned how to train from one man. Hmmm, maybe we have something here.

Anderson moved the aerobic mileage volume up for Moorcroft over the years from a low of about 30 as a teen to 90-100 when he was at his best in 1982 (running 1:47 (800), 3:33 (1500), 3:49 (mile), 7:33 (3k), and 13:00 (5k), in addition to running some stellar road times (esp. in road relays which were very big in Britian at the time). As Moorcroft moved up to the 5k and did more mileage, more buildups, more 1000s, he improved his performances across the board.

Glenn:

Thanks for sharing such detailed info on how you train the kids. Arthur would have been proud! I really liked your training pattern that you've sent to me earlier because it was very simple and straight forward Lydiardism. I also liked your use of 200s.

I tend to view longer reps as more or less high end aerobic workouts rather than "pure" anaerobic workout. I don't know exactly what's going on in your body when different individuals are running at certain speed. Lydiard used to do that simply 3/4 efrort runs; or in the case of Squires, it was road fartlek, or surges. Peter Snell was saying that he simply likes straight forward reps of run one fast and jog one--same distance recovery so you can keep fairly good speed. For "pure" anaerobic work, if that was your intention, I like your use of 200s because, even though most kids would be able to handle 400s, I'd still like to keep it low-key. Plus, they can run them at faster speed.

Why I liked Arthur Lydiard (and why I miss him so much) and why I enjoy jtupper's involvement:

In 1983, at one of his clinics, he was talking about increasing mileage in the initial stage (though it was not in 9 weeks...). One guy raised his hand and asked him how to do it. Arthur said, "I'm gonna talk about that." The man looked embarrassed and said, "Sorry..." Arthur jumped on it and said, "No, no, no! Don't be sorry, I welcome questions!" He had the mannerism that's so damn straight forward that at times came out as mean or arrogant. But he really really meant it. In 1991, he conducted a series of clinics in Japan. His opening comment was "I'm still learning and I welcome any comment." He really meant it. He loved to watch nature shows. He loved to learn new things. I have no doubt, if he sat down and had a heavy-duty discussion with someone like Daniels, he would have enjoyed learning more about high altitude training which he never really exposed himself to. He really really was a good man; a neat guy to hang around with.

If Daniels is a snob like some individuals seem to claim he is, there's no need for him to spend his time reading through all these messages and drop in and share his experience. Is it just me, when someone like him comes out and says he doesn't know, for some reason, he still sounds rather intellectual while some other individuals come out and act as if they know everything and trash others, it sounds opposite? Even if you didn't coach Gerry Lindgren or Jim Ryun (although I don't quite recall you actually claiming that you coached them...), we still love ya, doc!

Agreed! I think it is atrocious that people criticize Jack. The man has dedicated himself to helping runners and coaches improve. He also done a very good job of explaining training theories and applications.

Hey y'all! Saw yer Pacath stuff Nobby. Excellent! (I REALLY wanted to tell Kiwi that many of us have jobs too, and run a lot........) :)

Tinman (and/or whoever else cares to comment) - please elaborate on those peaking comments regarding long recovery vs short recovery between hard efforts. I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this. (Some might argue opposite: 20x200 short recovery in Spring ensures I do them at 1500 pace, thereby saving faster pace and long recovery for the summer, etc etc.)

40-60 competitions per year for Moorcroft???

What's Pacath? My English-Japanese dictionary didn't have that word (it has "psst"!).

Somewhere in his book, Ron Daws mentioned the difference between 20X400 with 100 recovery vs. 20X400 with 400 recovery. They are basically completely different workouts (duh!). I can't really speak in terms of energy system but, naturally you're not gonna be running as fast if you're having only 100m jog for recovery. I think it all depends on what you're trying to achieve with that particular workouts, how would your body react to it, and where you are in terms of developmental stage. Daws said something about 20X400 with 100 would be a good workout for during the conditioning period but 20X400 with 400 jog would be a good workout for anerobic phase. I personally don't think it's a good idea to shorten the recovery in order to "slow" down the pace. My personal opinion...

Hard to believe Moorcroft ran that many races... I have 10-week training leading up to his WR 5000; that should be the hight of his track season and he ran, including low-key local road races, 5 races in 10 weeks. That means he would have to run some 35+ races in the rest of 42 weeks. It seems like NZ runners run lots of low-key road races as a part of training; whether you may call them tempo runs or threshold runs or whatever. Ron Clarke ran lots of races simply because he enjoyed them. This might be the case for Moorcroft. But 60 sure sounds way too many. This should certainly NOT be a good example for young athletes to follow unless he/she is so damn well disciplined that some (most of) races will NOT be run too competitively.

Hey skuj which Kiwi ??

This one works but unfortunately cannot run heaps at present and followed his athletes on a Bike this evening.

Tinman:

You seem to know quite a bit of statistics... So according to your story on Moorcroft, are you saying that his coach thought it's a good idea to do long reps (vs. short reps) if you run a lot of races? And are you saying Moorcroft was doing long reps with plenty of recovery or, according to John Anderson's philosophy, taking short recovery to "slow him down"? And lastly are you saying long recovery prevents you from premature peak or short recovery? I would think long recovery would let you run faster and therefore peak quicker.

I might have commented the same story about upping the mileage. Quaxie cut 2 or 3 seconds off from his 1500m when he moved up the distance to 5000 and upped his mileage. Lorraine PRing in 1500 after she started running marathons. Maybe it only happens to the Kiwis. But then again, there's Shibui's 10000m national record (beating Deena by a couple of seconds)...

Pacath = the pacific athletics thread on Lydiard:

http://pacificathletics.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=780

"Kiwi Smiler" posts there, very insightful about Lydiard.

Ah! No wonder my dictionary didn't have it! So I've been posting messages without knowing where I was posting... Typical!

Oasis,

I do not use trials with the HS runners during their season, as they have weekly races during that time. Their season ends the last week of October. A few continue on to run the Footlocker Regional meet which is the about 4 weeks later, the Saturday after Thanksgiving. I usually use 2 trials during that time.

Based on your current 8 km time of 28 minutes, I would guess that I'd target you for about 5:10 pace for a 1 1/2 mile trial and about 5:15 for 2 miles. I would add them in during the last 6 weeks of your preparation, with these being on terrain similar to the terrain you will be racing. These are not race effort, but as with most of Lydiard type work, they are controlled efforts. I would do them even the week of your key race as a "test". If you target a pace, then that pace should feel easier over time. If on the other hand you target a feeling, like how you would feel in the middle of an 8 km race, then the pace should get faster.

Your question about 10 x 400 in 75 is difficult to answer, as that can be a good workout, it truly depends on the other workouts that is incorporated with. No one workout should make or break the success of your season, but the aggregate should bring success.

As far as the 4 x 400. I like to add them after a 5 minute recovery jog from the trial. They are run at what I call mile effort with equal distance recovery between each. It is something the kids seem to enjoy, especially blasting the last one of the 4.

Regarding rep length and amount of rest taken between reps, many variations can be used for peaking. Assuming the runner has an excellent aerobic base and continues sufficient amounts of aerobic conditioning throughout the competitive period, a runner can use either long reps with long rest or shorter reps with short recoveries to fully develop the anaerobic lactate system.

For example, long reps like 400-800's with a full walk/jog recovery will maximally develop anaerobic capacity. But so will short reps like 200's with short jog recoveries (example: 4x (4x200 @ 800 pace/30 sec. jog rest), full recovery between sets.

I've used both of these types of anaerobic sessions with good success. Both accomplish the same thing (maximally develop anaerobic capacity). I use them both for the sake of variety.

Finally, in his excellent book "Running Your Best," Ron Daws suggests running 16-20x400 @ 10k/100 jog during the base phase for higher level runners. This would be a fairly high level aerobic session, but certainly one that a good runner could easily tolerate without compromising volume during the base phase.

Coachc

John,

you are absolutely right. The kilometers are run at either current 5 km pace or target 5 km pace. As I mentioned, I have little input on what these kids do with their HS coaches. The coaches are actually telling the parents who asked me to help to backoff from giving the runners workouts. They actually say the kids need a day off each week, need to not run those "long" miles. It is difficult to only have 2 days per week to have a complete say about what they are doing. I do have tell them to be sure to cover 1 hour of running time every day. That seems to help with recovery from the repeats, hills and more repeats that the coaches dole out.

Where do you get the 4km max for an anaerobic workout? Actually when I do fully anaerobic work, the distance is cut down drastically, typically no more than 2 miles total "work" distance, lots of easy jogging before, between and after. With the HSers, and others I work with, I limit total work to 3 miles and then only if they have a 3 month build-up of 30 mpw or more. Below 30 I limit them to 2 miles or "work".

And yes the pace is not what would fall into the formal definition of "anaerobic". However, I use Arthur's comments that the work during the anaerobic phase is like "eyewash". You want it to achieve the task at hand, getting the body used to running with a limited oxygen supply.

I hope that I understood your comments. If not, feel free to try to clarify and I will try to answer.

Glenn

I have this idea for "speedwork".

A 400 at 800 pace = "2x". A 1000 at 5000 pace = "5x".

For me, "16x" to "8x" can be short recovery, "pre season" intensity. This is "cruisy / tempoey / stridey" stuff, which I find very important, year round.

"4x" is normal intensity, should be longer recovery. "2x" is very intense (peaking!) stuff, usually with loooooong recovery. (Ex: 2x1500m at 3k goal pace with 10min rest, or 4x400m at 800m goal pace with 4min recovery.)

Tinman's comments intrigue me! Can't wait to hear more from him.

Thanks for your clarification. I would, and I think Glenn would agree with this, tend to follow what Lydiard used to prescribe for "repetitions": Run one fast, jog one; repeat till you hit the wall.

Skuj: I think your assumption on repeat formula would probably be fairly accurate. It's just I really don't like to "formulate" anything so precisely because then the schedule will control you; not you control the schedule. General "feel" for thet pace or ball-park figure of numbers, fine. But anything else is a lot of "eyewash".

One time I asked Bill Baillie about recovery jog. He said, "For something like 400m repeats, yes, the same distance would be fine. But I wouldn't jog a mile between the mile repeats; I'd get cold or wobbly!" If you pretty much recover after a lap jog, by all mean! If, after the same distance recovery jog, your're still not recovered, go another lap!

CoachC:

By the way, my question was specifically directed to Dave Moorcroft's training and philosophy of his coach, John Anderson, as well as information from Tinman; not necessarily in general term. Are you in a position to have a go at it in place of Tinman? I was just curious on how Moorcroft's training was designed based on what training philosophy; and Tinman's explanation was a bit confusing (I thought he misplaced and interchanged "long" and "short" at some places) and I wanted to make sure.