LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Daniels is great for making bad runners good and average runners better than average. However, it is Runner's World type of training and better fot the recreational runner than someone who wants to become, say, an All-American. Lydiard is much better at taking someone who is already very good and making them great.

If you are a Division III coach, Daniels is likely the choice.

If you are upper Division II and Division I, Lydiard would be more of a standard choice.

I'm going to ammend that last answer to say that it really depends on what you want from the sport and what you're willing to do to get it. If you want to stay around 30-35, you can still follow Arthur's principals productively.

Found this on the 6th page so I'm bumping it.

Currently reading "Self-Made Olympian" by Daws before I delve into his second book. Fascinating reading. Like many have said, he explains Lydiard better than Lydiard.

rbc:

If you've read Lydiard's book, you've noticed he had outlined quite specifically and clearly how to start building up.

You start running out and back course; trying to keep the effort and speed even. Go out for 15 mintues first and turn around and come back. If it takes longer than 15 minutes coming back; you'll know you've started out too fast. Once you can handle 30 minutes or so easily, gradually start increasing the time spent running; then alternate the length; make sure you go long and go back to shorter run the next day for recovery... Forget 6 months or 3 months or 9 weeks or whatever. Keep working on this till you can run "comfortably" for 90 minutes to 2 hours. As far as I'm concerned, running 35 miles a week don't really mean much--it could be 5 miles every day; or it coule be 15 miles on weekend and 3-milers on other days. You might be better off with the latter because you're working on muscular endurance.

As HRE suggested, understand why you're trying to do the "base" work. Then you'll understand it wouldn't matter if you do it for 3 months of 6 months.

If 35MPW is really all you can handle (or all you want to train) and still want to race sooner, consider Race-week/Non-race week schedules.

I have a specific question related to the Lydiard hill phase: I have just completed the 3rd week of hill bounding (rather springing) after the good build-up and base phase (avg. of 105 miles for 11 weeks). I am still holding a nice volume (103, 112, 97) when doing hill exercises and plan to do so for the remainder of the hill phase (6 weeks together). Now to the point: I had a 10k road race this Sunday and despite the overall not so fresh feeling I decided to race, mainly due to the prize money... I hade skipped 1 hill session on Saturday obviously and slightly lowered the volume for this week (97miles from 112 miles the week before). I had run very average race for me, worst time than during the base phase and got beaten by 2 guys whom I usually beat handily. I wouldn't be so worried for just losing, it happens, but the thing that worries me is the overall feeling while at race pace. I felt aerobically under control the whole race, I felt I could go further, but not faster. My legs were a bit tired but nothing I didn't experience before, however, I felt like I was jumping on place, up and down, just like when springing up hill. I am worried whether the hill exercises are not messing with my form and efficient running style. Also, how is it possible that I had a problem with the initial fast pace, despite all that sprint training and speed exercises I do? I didn't have problem with the kick, but my wheels needed at least a 6k to get moving... Could someone knowledgeable enlighten me on this problem?

Sorry for the long-winded message.

Ronin:

Sounds like you're doing a great job! This should probably come from someone like Hotlanta or Mike Solkowski who's doing the Lydiard program right now (except Hotlanta is taking a bit of a detour!).

During the Lydiard hill phase, your legs get lots of beating and will be tired. Regardless of how you feel "aerobically", your actual performance will go down a bit. Also you are still in the middle of the whole construction process you might say. Your whole running has not bee polished in a smooth continuous running mode. Afterall, you have more than 10 weeks of "putting the whole zigsow puzzles" left.

Thanks for the answer Nobby, I guess a bit of patience on my side might help.

Tinman:

One of the objectives we have for the Lydiard Foundation is to explain what it is as well as how and why it works. As you pointed out, there are certain things that Lydiard explained that weren't quite right. There was one issue Peter Snell pointed out and he corrected for me (interestingly, it was just the number that Lydiard used that was incorrect; but with the "correct" number, the principle was explained and proven even better than before). We are still at each other with one other topic though...

Since you've brought up this 50/50 sharpener and the way Lydiard explained how it works "incorrect", if it is in fact true, we would very much like to know that. As I've asked you before, we would appreciate it very much if you can direct us to any literature or research to back up your comment. I have not seen any research on this (though I don't necessarily look for new studies) and, as Glenn McCarthy pointed out, I recall Lydiard saying something about East German exercise physiologists commenting the way Lydiard explained. From pure experience, how it (50/50) feels during the practice as well as how it feels afterwards, how Lydiard explained at least makes sense to me.

Ronin:

Patience, faith, Faith Hill... Whatever you want to call it (I sort of prefer the last one). You don't want to eat a cake half cooked. Same thing; you don't want to determine if the program is good or not half way through. This line came from Lydiard himself when young (and stupid) Nobby asked him "I've run 100MPW, why can't I run fast?" Well...

Lydiard himself gave us a beautiful example in his book; that coach from TX who thought Lydiard's program ruined his season when none of his runenrs were running 400 repeats as fast as they were before. Lucky he thought there's nothing he could do and stick with it...

There are people who absolutely need assurance along the way. They plant some tree but need to know if it's rooting and keep pulling it out to see. It'll die off soon if you keep doing that. Be patient and have faith (Hill).

One thing that caught my attention though. You said you're doing windsprints at the bottom of the hill as well. Quite often, once you start doing hill phase, you WILL get faster even doing long runs (as Mike Solkawski experienced). The fact you said it didn't work out that way got me thinking you might want to consider using more like a time trial type anaerobic training than plain intervals. I don't know exactly what type of training you do and how you react to them so this is just my thought out of guessing.

For what it's worth, I happen to have just read this in Daws "Self-Made Olympian" book:

"After a week or two on the hills, you may feel weaker, not stronger. From this observation, some runners have deduced that hill training isn't the toughener it's supposed to be, and that it even makes them weaker. While there often is a temporary setback, avoiding hills would be a mistake."

I know ronin said he was 3 weeks in, rather than the one or two weeks that Daws mentions above, but this could possibly explain his race a bit.

I'm still a Lydiard neophyte, but I agree 100% with Nobby. You've got to see the schedule through to the end to reap the best results, regardless of how "off course" you might seem at the beginning or in the middle.

ronin,

I think one of the things that has put people off of Lydiard training over the years is the fact that you don't get the improvements immediately and in some cases seem even to regress a bit. When that happens they go off and do something else. I think this has become especially significant in the age of money where being "below form" for a number of weeks while you're working your way to top shape can cost you a few bucks, or euros, or quid, or whatever the currency is where you live.

I also think that having a group of people that you see weekly or even daily who did the training and succeeded with it, as Lydiard's original group did, helps shore up confidence and many latter day runners, doing Lydiard on their own, don't get that.

you've also hit upon the reason that Arthur created his Race Week-non Race Week schedule and why a guy like Pat Clohessey changed the way Lydiard was applied to DeCastella and the other athletes he coached.

Kim,

Don McFarquhar was a short distance guy. 1:55 or so for 800. Good club runner.

Yeah, it's like some people go off doing 100MPW and some hills and that doesn't bring any "immediate" performance so they switch to intervals and start to run better. "Ah," they'd say, "intervals is the best way for good results!" Well...the whole program, before and after, would look awefully like the entire Lydiard program, wouldn't it?

Nobby wrote:

Yeah, it's like some people go off doing 100MPW and some hills and that doesn't bring any "immediate" performance so they switch to intervals and start to run better. "Ah," they'd say, "intervals is the best way for good results!" Well...the whole program, before and after, would look awefully like the entire Lydiard program, wouldn't it?

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

Nobby: Succinct and very well said!!! Tinman

I try to steer the folks I work with away from racing during the hill phase. I've only worked with 1 runner out of hundreds, that did not feel "beat up" for the first 2 to 3 weeks of the 4 weeks of hill workouts. I've run and had other run in races during the month long process. They just don't expect to race well. Some were involved with race series that coincided with their hill work. Being in Colorado, I've found February-March as a good time to do hills as the races during that time of year tend to be less "inviting". That way the runners can get the work done before starting any anaerobic work with an eye toward racing better by May or June.

Nobby, thanks for your comment on Arthur's "sharpeners". I do remember there being articles I read in the 70s or early 80s that supported the "lactate" buildup limitation or not running longer than 16 seconds. I just assumed they supported Arthur's coaching results/experiences. I'll have to go digging in some of my older books.

Glenn

Glenn:

I think a problem with so-called scientific researsh is, for one, in this case, it is possible that the research done in the 70s and 80s might be out-dated. That, in fact, was the case with this discussion Peter Snell and I had. Peter updated it for us. That was a number issue. But more serious is that the research itself could very well possible not valid.

Lydiard always said, with smirk, that quite often so-called experts don't know the difference between the elbow to the backside. Yes, there are very useful scientific information out there but you really have to be careful of who wrote it, how the test was conducted, how long they took to conduct it, etc.

A good example would be, while we are on the topic of whole training program, I've read a research written on training mileage. They tested several athletes one year when they ran a lot and measured their performance level. Then they ran less in mileage but increased the intensity in the following year. Almost everybody's performance improved. Hense, they concluded that less mileage and higher intensity would produce better performance. I never believed that kind of "research".

I would much rather rely on empirical information (did I use this word correctly? I just wanted to use a fancy word...) or gut-feeling that tells me that it makes sense.

Nobby,

I know what you mean about research. I also know that you can use statistics to "prove" any point you want to make. Even 2 reviewers of a research product can use the same data points to support total opposite conclusions. It is when I have a "gut-feel" or "emperical" evidence and then a study is published that supports my view, I jump on the band wagon siting the support. (Of course if something else comes out to discredit my view, I can almost always find a "flaw" in the reviewers conclusions. :-) )

Glenn

Ronin,

Looks like you are getting great advice here, so I thought I should spoil it by adding my two cents. I think you nailed it with your "patience" comment, as supported by Nobby, HRE, Glenn and others. I raced after my third hill week, and my experience probably would have been the same as yours, save for the fact that my race was 10 miles instead of a 10K. At that distance I did feel a real "aerobic" benefit, much like you explaining having good wind during your race. I also felt much more confidence during the race, where even though I was running 7 seconds per mile faster than I ran last year, I never had any doubt that I could keep up the pace. Whether it was psychological or physical, knowledge of having so many 22 mile runs "in the bank" kept me very calm and relaxed during the race, so I knew I would not blow up. If the race was as short (and anaerobic) as yours I could very well have felt the same way you did.

As for leg speed, my feet felt like bricks when I had to sprint at the end and I really made a mess of the last 200 meters. Sounds like you had more luck with your sprinting. I didn't feel like I was bouncing up and down exactly, but it did feel like my stride was longer.

If you are doing 6 weeks of hills, you most likely have 16 or so weeks down, and 12 more or so to go. It sounds like your mileage is great, and you certainly have dedicated yourself to the program. If you have access to Ron Daws' "Running your Best" book, the first chapter talks about the psychological boost runners get from having complete confidence in their coach/program. I say stay the course and try not to get too caught up in the numbers at this point. They may be passing you now, but you will be at your best when it's most important, at the end. At least that's what I keep telling myself!

Salkowskim:

Don't get me wrong that this is something I'm suggesting--I understand you're doing some windsprints at the bottom of the hill (or should I say, you WERE doing them). A part most people would avoid in the Lydiard's hill training is the downhill section. Even people like John Walker or Marti Liquori did. It would be leg-speed/striding exercise.

Naturally, uphill section would work on "longer strides" part of development. "Faster strides" would be developed through downhill striding. I put the Lydiard training as "putting the zigsow puzzles together", it is literally like that. You develop your aerobic capacity, then anaerobic capacity, then you put them all together. Likewise, you'd be developing "longer strides" as well as "faster strides" and put them all together. In the later writing of Lydiard, he recommended doing 3 days of hill training with 3 days (in between) of what we call leg speed exercise. You would go over approximately 100~150m of preferably slightly downhill with the wind on your back, running fast with legs moving as fast as you can. Lydiard explained this as "overcoming muscle viscosity" to develop quick leg movement.

If you, after doing hill phase, feel like you're bouncing up and down, or perhaps even feel like you're overstfiding, you migh want to consider performing this type of exercise.

Thank you all for the replies, encouragement and good-minded scolding for impatience. Indeed, complete faith in hill springing was what I had missed, but now I would just keep doing what I am and wait for the indoor European circuit.

Nobby, I am doing down hill striding, sprints at the bottom of the hill and also twice weekly "leg speed" exercises and strides. The amount of fast running per week (5 days) might be what is holding me back now, but I will stick with it. What do you mean by the anaerobic time trials? Was that supposed to be done in the anaerobic phase? I would imagine something like 3x500m with very long recovery, or 1x2000m or 1x mile. Am I correct?