Physiology questions about Lydiard training.

This thread is tearing me apart!

First someone says ST runners need a longer interval recovery, then someone says they need a shorter interval recovery, and then everybody changes back again ...

Confused JD,

Part of the confusion can be cleared up by realizing that both ST and FT need to work on both their strengths and their weaknesses.

interesting your opinion Coe was ST, never would have thought that, your description of him as a ST makes sense though, also Snell as a FT

Antonio Cabral wrote:

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. Shorter intervals with shorter recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. Longer intervals with long recovery

________________________________________

I mean by different intervals it´s just a tendency based in each fiber type, I don´t mean JUT do IT, or do it exclusively, or do it straight and nothing else.

When I say this is because the short interval type with short length and active recovery promotes aerobic enhance to the one (the FT) that works better with fast pace (because short distance is easier to run at fast pace), and the short recovery length able aerobic condition. While doing so the FT is used to run more aerobic and used less his aerobic system.

That´s the opposite if we think about the ST runner. To this one the tendency is long distance intervals to create higher anaerobic demand and quiet passive and long recovery, because if the concentration of lactate is high the long length of interval recovery and quite passive can´t enable that lactate to be reduced, BECAUSE in tons of lactate RIGHT AFTER THAT THE FAST RUN (or each fast interval) is done, in the long period of interval THE LACTATE CONCENTRATIION DOES´T REDUCE, BUT TENDS TO AUGMENT. Then the next one interval you start to run it with the same or more lactate concentration that you finish the last one interval, probably more.

The ST runner, I mean long intervals with long stand recovery but not extreme long length. A ratio of 1:1 or 1:1/2 maximum, I mean by instance, for the classic 3-6Xmile, if you run in 4:30, I mean long stand recovery of 4:30-6minutes.

The FT runner, by short intervals with long recovery I mean by instance the classic 10X300m with a 1:1/2 to 1:3/4 if is active recovery. For example, one runnerdoes 10-15X300m in about 50secs averaghe. If he stays stand the length recovery is about 25seconds (1:1/2), if he jogs ahead 100m as recovery then some 37seconds (1:3/4)to start the next one interval.

But this guy nickname(IJ(&^%#gycI) he is right, this training that i meant about intrevals, is work on both, strengths and their weaknesses, weakness as prime interest.

Now, this is very important.

Later on in the season, don´t forget that the second level of specificity intervals are RPTD – Race Pace at Target Distance. This kind of intervals might be as long as possible as long as you keep hold the race pace of your distance event. One RPTD for one 1500m specialist might be for instance 3X800m/at his 1500m estimate race pace. One RPTD for one 5k 15:00pb specialist might be 5X1000m/at 3:00min. One RPTD for one marathon specialist would be 5X4k in about his marathon race pace. In my opinion RPTD specific workouts the interval length isn´t important, you can do long and different interval length among the fast parts, what really matters is that the intervals able to run at that race pace target

I try to answer your questions.

Question: Antonio, I understand the concept of shorter intervals with shorter recovery for ST runners as they will recover quicker, but would you still have a ST marathoner do shorter intervals with shorter recovery, or would you go for longer intervals with shorter recovery?

ANSWER: Confused James Dean. Despite that the FT requires short intervals with less recovery and the ST long intervals with long recovery, we need to look and take in consideration what is the distance event. The marathon requires a lot of aerobics. Therefore despite that someone is one ST type for the marathon normally the interval recover used in intervals is shorter than other distance events that by be shorter run distance are fast..

Question: Also, would a ST runner generally not benefit from the strength aspect of longer intervals rather than the speed aspect of shorter intervals? And is there a possibility that a ST runner could be overwhelmed by shorter intervals?

ANSWER: Everyone shall do long intervals, both the FT and the ST, but during the RPTD workouts, not in the early stage of the season. Ther´s no overwhelmed in training. What exists is some training more efficient than other, and it´s why it´s important to take the right training direction.

Question: Other than that, how would you identify whether a runner is ST or FT without testing, e.g. relationship across distances? If a runner has extremely tight relationships across distances (e.g. 10k-Mara) does this indicate that they are more ST, or, alternatively, might it just indicate that they are not suitably trained at the shorter event?

ANSWER: Ther´s no relationship about the performance and the fiber type. One 3:00 marathon runner can be a FT or a ST type relate to that distance event.

I know 1500m runners at world top class that does more ST fibers percent that other marathon runner of world top category.

FT and ST types, are just how someone uses more or less the aerobic and the anaerobic systems, relate the the needs of each distance event. An the INNATE quality to use one or another at an higher or lower efficiency it´s related to the fiber type, among other physiologic and biomechanics characteristics.

António Cabral wrote:

ANSWER: Ther´s no relationship about the performance and the fiber type. One 3:00 marathon runner can be a FT or a ST type relate to that distance event.

I know 1500m runners at world top class that does more ST fibers percent that other marathon runner of world top category.

FT and ST types, are just how someone uses more or less the aerobic and the anaerobic systems, relate the the needs of each distance event. An the INNATE quality to use one or another at an higher or lower efficiency it´s related to the fiber type, among other physiologic and biomechanics characteristics.

I want to mean that ther´s not TOTAL and ABSOLUTE direct reltionship about the performance and fiber type and ther´s not TOTAL and ABSOLUTE direct reltionship about the distance event that the runner got more ability/talent and fiber type distribution. Because in really ther are some, but not total.

Antonio,

Now I'm confused too. It looks like you mixed up ST and FT intervals in the first quote.

You originally wrote:

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. Shorter(ST?) intervals with shorter(ST?) recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. Longer(FT?) intervals with long(FT?) recovery

But in your detailed description, you describe:

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. (ST needs) LONGER intervals with LONGER recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. (FT needs) SHORTER intervals with SHORTER recovery

This thread is just stupid.

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

Now I'm confused too. It looks like you mixed up ST and FT intervals in the first quote.

You originally wrote:

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. Shorter(ST?) intervals with shorter(ST?) recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. Longer(FT?) intervals with long(FT?) recovery

But in your detailed description, you describe:

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. (ST needs) LONGER intervals with LONGER recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. (FT needs) SHORTER intervals with SHORTER recovery

Sorry and thanks to let me know.

It´s the problem to write in another language and without revision. It´s the detailed description that is right.

The first quote makes no sense.

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. Shorter(ST?) intervals with shorter(ST?) recovery. WRONG !

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. Longer(FT?) intervals with long(FT?) recovery. WRONG !

The second one (your late one) is one right, absolutely.

ST - mileage at faster pace related to the FT. (ST needs) LONGER intervals with LONGER recovery

FT - mileage in slow pace related to the ST. (FT needs) SHORTER intervals with SHORTER recovery

As you might understand in the first period fo training while we try to enhance the aerobic condition, the target is to enahnve our weakness, that why i say FT or ST NEEDS, i might say FT and ST WEAKNESS.

On the second period of training we try to train the specifics, what mean to enhance our ability relate to the target distance event that we train for, what means specific trainig and among teh specifrc training RPTD is the main priority of training WITHOUT DECLINE THE AEROBIC CONDITION.

This oe is right

By mileage i mean whats done by daily runs´, not by intervals.

Intervals everybody knows what it is.

It is explained here, but you probably know it already

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989

Being that this is a Lydiard thread at least according to the OP, let me just mention that "anaerobic" in the parlance of Arthur Lydiard related to the cardio-vascular system - to train at a strong enough effort to not be able to replenish oxygen in the blood and therefore need to slow or stop to recover.

The nervous system, muscles etc were part and parcel to being anaerobic, obviously because you are running, but the workout length and effort and the surface and grade influenced the nuero-muscular aspect, not so much because your cardiac engine is being taxed - not exactly, not specifically.

The question is was the purpose of any run to affect the cardio-vascular system or was the purpose to strengthen the muscles or a combination of both. Which brings us to speed in the parlance of Lydiard.

Strides were not meant to be anaerobic, they were meant to be aerobic because they were not long enough (8 - 10 seconds) to have the demands of oxygen that would cause the athlete to become anaerobic. But it was SPEED work because they would run fast and affect the nuero-muscular system. The term there is alactic.

Lydiard did not refer to (for example) mile repeats or km repeats as "speed work" because the athlete was still not moving fast enough yet to stimulate the nuero-muscular system - at least not to the extend alactic strides would or 100m sprints or hill work, like bounding, and repeats etc.

With the Lydiard way, the aerobic development phase came first and was carefully built so that the athlete could handle the hill and anaerobic phases as well as racing season. BUT he would say, when pressed, EVERYTHING is important. You have to develop everything.

So the notion that he played anything safe maybe true in comparison to someone else who did not play it safe, but Lydiard did not play it safe, he was careful in how he planned and deliberate, but running a very hilly 22 miler at a strong effort for a world class 800m runner is not playing it safe. Or letting a world class distance runner run anaerobic-slash-anaerobic threshold intervals until the ATHLETE decided he was done, was not safe.

Or was it?

Athleticsillustrated wrote:

So the notion that he played anything safe maybe true in comparison to someone else who did not play it safe, but Lydiard did not play it safe, he was careful in how he planned and deliberate, but running a very hilly 22 miler at a strong effort for a world class 800m runner is not playing it safe. Or letting a world class distance runner run anaerobic-slash-anaerobic threshold intervals until the ATHLETE decided he was done, was not safe.

Or was it?

This is so true. Still Peter Snell didn´t complete a lot of that typical weekly 22 hilly miles. He wasn´t able to cover it.

The long run is one Lydiard myth among several.

Anyone goy doubt about what i say that Peter Snell didn´t complete it ? I might prove. I will prove that soon.

I can assure you that strides are most definitely anaerobic, not aerobic, and that all training is neuromuscular. How can it not be?

You're writing is typical of magazine type pseudoscience. But do you even care?

fizzyology detector wrote, in part, in an earlier post,

"...or do you just want to argue?"

Wow, I was about to ask you the same thing!

Take PEDs. Lydiard never wrote that. But we all know.

Strides as distance training approach isn´t really t training stuff it´s a joke.

speed strides trains neuromuscular system ? Yes it does. Biomechanics ? Yes it does, some anaerobic training ? Yes it does.

Sometimes someone says that this or this kind of raining is the cerise at the top of the cake. But the kind of typical speed strides during the build up aerobic phase, and think that it works quite well as supplement of the daily runs, that´s a joke of juvenile runners, and last minute coaches that read that stride speed thing in a book or on the internet search and they trust in everything they read. It is not enough to be the cerise. It´s a fantasy.

Every pace faster than the RPTD - race pace target distance, done by intervals that promotes resistance and creates lactate is what shall be done as the best neuromuscular and biomechanics enhance.

Do specifics, resistance, correct interval training well done, be track intervals, fartlek, hill intervals whatever, because it´s the best fast training type any runner might as prime importance out of aerobic training.

Speed strides got some interest works as stimulus after the warmup and before the interval fast training, but you don´t lost nothing at all if you miss it or replace it by another better training variant.

Even if strides are most definitely anaerobic, strides are a poor anaerobic workout.

fizzyology detector wrote:

I can assure you that strides are most definitely anaerobic, not aerobic, and that all training is neuromuscular. How can it not be?

You're writing is typical of magazine type pseudoscience. But do you even care?

POD

"Strides as distance training approach isn´t really t training stuff it´s a joke.

speed strides trains neuromuscular system ? Yes it does. Biomechanics ? Yes it does, some anaerobic training ? Yes it does.

Sometimes someone says that this or this kind of raining is the cerise at the top of the cake. But the kind of typical speed strides during the build up aerobic phase, and think that it works quite well as supplement of the daily runs, that´s a joke of juvenile runners, and last minute coaches that read that stride speed thing in a book or on the internet search and they trust in everything they read. It is not enough to be the cerise. It´s a fantasy.

Every pace faster than the RPTD - race pace target distance, done by intervals that promotes resistance and creates lactate is what shall be done as the best neuromuscular and biomechanics enhance.

Do specifics, resistance, correct interval training well done, be track intervals, fartlek, hill intervals whatever, because it´s the best fast training type any runner might as prime importance out of aerobic training.

Speed strides got some interest works as stimulus after the warmup and before the interval fast training, but you don´t lost nothing at all if you miss it or replace it by another better training variant."

SlowFatMaster wrote:

fizzyology detector wrote, in part, in an earlier post,

"...or do you just want to argue?"

Wow, I was about to ask you the same thing!

Intellingent debate or argument please. When we are gasping for breath, what is the cause, should that state be avoided, etc etc.

I say it's bad and should be avoided, because it is inneficient to exhale a lot more oxygen that you inhale.

Yes a sub 45 400 runner will be breathing hard ten minutes after a race, that is recovery. What happens during the race?

rekrunner wrote:

Even if strides are most definitely anaerobic, strides are a poor anaerobic workout.

fizzyology detector wrote:

I can assure you that strides are most definitely anaerobic, not aerobic, and that all training is neuromuscular. How can it not be?

You're writing is typical of magazine type pseudoscience. But do you even care?

Why? You seem to believe int this lowering the blood pH argument. I don't, see previous post, it's inneficient. A little is ok, a lot is bad.