Now I see why you can't get away with not doing speedwork

Sciatica Road wrote:

Hadd's contention was that it took A LOT of relatively slow, continuous running, in order to properly develop the slow-twitch fibers.

This is a common misunderstanding of Hadd's postings. Hadd's crucial point is that you do a lot of slow tempo running to improve your fat burning. Yes, he also advocated fairly high mileage and slow easy runs but that's nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running. Actually if you do a lot of running at somewhat slower than MP your HR on the easy runs will come down by itself.

hadder wrote:

Sciatica Road wrote:

Hadd's contention was that it took A LOT of relatively slow, continuous running, in order to properly develop the slow-twitch fibers.

This is a common misunderstanding of Hadd's postings. Hadd's crucial point is that you do a lot of slow tempo running to improve your fat burning. Yes, he also advocated fairly high mileage and slow easy runs but that's nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running. Actually if you do a lot of running at somewhat slower than MP your HR on the easy runs will come down by itself.

It is NOT a misunderstanding of what Hadd wrote, because the issue of disagreement is the interpretation of "relatively slow". Hadd contended that typically runner's short-changed the aerobic development of slow-twitch fibers because they ran mileage too fast. He actually put heart rate limits on what the "relatively slow" mileage should be done at, as a modulator of intensity. Typically, most runners initially find paces at those heart rates awkwardly slow.

That is what Hadd contended. I'm not disagreeing with it or agreeing with it here. I just want it made clear what Hadd prescribed for aerobic development (to get one's VDOT at longer distances raised to the levels of their shorter distance races.)

hadder wrote:

Hadd's crucial point is that you do a lot of slow tempo running to improve your fat burning.

So you are actually agreeing with what Sciatica Road wrote!

Yes, he also advocated fairly high mileage and slow easy runs

You are repeating yourself, still agreeing with Sciatica Road's interpretation of Hadd.

but that's nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running.

Where did Hadd ever, EVER, say that the slow running (i.e. HRmax - 50bpm) is nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running?!?

As most people you've come to believe that Hadd's main philosophy is similar to Maffetone. His main focus is NOT lots of slow running, it's mileage, long runs and variety of paces. Very easy distance running is a part of it. But when people like you picks out this as the most important point, you're way off.

der der der der der wrote:

Where did Hadd ever, EVER, say that the slow running (i.e. HRmax - 50bpm) is nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running?!?

Hadd's training philosophy is about balance. If you're weak on the aerobic side, you should train more at aerobic paces. If you're weak on the anaerobic side you should train more at anaerobic paces. Many people are horribly unbalanced and haven't developed their very slow paces at all. That's why they should train at these paces. Not because Hadd thought long slow distance was better than anything else.

Good Ron Clarke text. I knew it but i thanks that you post and I read it again.

Let me permit to comment. Here the question is not speed or not speed, aerobic or anaerobic, or one training proposal that refuses anaerobic training during a long period. He proposes do “speed” consistently year round. But his way to “speed”/anaerobic/lactate is “…close to top speed (certainly not slow – Ron Clake), good tempo running…” and he does it progressively from season introduction to late competitive season (…get faster and faster as the session progressed . Ron Clarke)

There what are that kind of tempo ? Are very fast (…achieve this in long, non-stop …Ron Clake) style. As you might agree this is anaerobic training, faster and highly pace that LT aerobic runs.

So, the main comment is not to deny the interest of anaerobic training done year round to accustomed the body to anaerobic percent required for the competition.

However, he does another interesting fact, the kind of training he uses. “….I competed under distance – in 800’s, 1500’s and so on – Ron Clake”. There he, while be a 5000m-10000m specialist uses short competitions in 800-1500m middle distance as another kind of training (read anaerobic training) to promote shape condition.

Knowing that Ron Clake was a great young talent since the age of young teenager, I see him as a talet that since young age did great aerobic ability, great aerobic talent. He was born in 1937 but in the Olympic Games in Melbourne 1956, 19 years old, due to his exceptional talent it was him that carry the olympic flag up to the stadium.

As he got a tremendous aerobic potential that able him to run “at train” in solo runs and he took the 5k wr from 13:35.0 to 13:16.6 and the 10k wr from 28:18.2 to 27:39.4.

There I understand that while be a FT kind that possesses high aerobics he prefers tempos and non-stop workouts than intervals. Also I agree with him that short intervals type doesn´t able the runner to get the pace and the (…rhythm… - Ron Clarke) to able rich distance performance. But one thing is to consider that short intervals is limited as specific training, other thing is to deny any interest in doing so once for a while. This is the mess of some. I repeat, one thing is think that short interval type is the “must” of performance – isn´t at all, another thing is to imagine that short interval training like 400s might be done faster up to exhaustion – it doesn´t absolutely, other thing is deny the interest of that kind of training to promote the aerobic condition and to be the first pathway to the anaerobic condition.

If intervals should be banned, then for the same reason the aerobic runs should be banned as well !

The short intervals are a poor simulate of run specificity due to different pace but also due to the pauses of recover. The competition from the start to the finish got no rests in between. It´s ok. But also the aerobic runs are too slow to mimic the competition specificity. But for those reason we shall miss that in the training process ? No we don´t. We must do it, knowing the benefits of the interval training (grows up the aerobic condition, benefits the muscular, good as run biomechanics, good for the neurologic system). But also knowing the limitation. Danger of excess of it, danger of doing it inappropriate, faster than it should, high risk of overtraining. I got conscious of all that danger, and I know that as specific training the interval training short type isn´t the kind of ultimate training.

The recover of the interval training aren´t to permit to go faster, are to permit to go longer.

There when Ron Clarke suggests tempo non-stop runs, I suggest long intervals that is near the same with benefits. BY instance the runner that does 10-15X4000m as a 5k specialist is distant to the training specificity still. But when he does 5X1500m or 4X2000m 3X3000m (like Crlos Lopes did when he approached a 10k run) or 3000m+2000m+1000m, he stands up in race pace so many minutes, so long, that is equivalent to a tempo run, and benefits with the rest/recover, the rest/recover aren´t problematic as with short intervals that does, and it´s still anaerobic as a single tempo run lime Ron Clark did it, and might be done more frequently because are less anaerobic that fast tempo ru s for the same total distance.

Remember Alberto Salazar recent interview:

Alberto Salazar After the 10K

August 5, 2012 5:59 am

by Amby Burfoot

http://olympics.runnersworld.com/2012/alberto-salazar-after-the-10k/

Alberto Salazar: “We do speed consistently year round. We never give the body anything that it’s not accustomed to. I don’t believe in systems like the Lydiard system where they times of no speed. The body likes consistency. We always have some of it in the mix. We just use different intensities at different times of the year.

hadder wrote:

der der der der der wrote:

Where did Hadd ever, EVER, say that the slow running (i.e. HRmax - 50bpm) is nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running?!?

Hadd's training philosophy is about balance. If you're weak on the aerobic side, you should train more at aerobic paces. If you're weak on the anaerobic side you should train more at anaerobic paces. Many people are horribly unbalanced and haven't developed their very slow paces at all. That's why they should train at these paces. Not because Hadd thought long slow distance was better than anything else.

Another staple of Hadd training is that he believed you should build from slower to faster paces. That helps to explain why so many ignorants have come to believe that Hadd training is only about lsd.

rekrunner

I understand what you say, you just show one side of Hadd´s coin, the one that is link to present debate.

Actually i just waht to let you know I don´t imagine who you are really. My only referential is your nickname. But it really doesn´t matter.

I guess that the battle of post with a undentified nickname is over. Actually no one really cares who is who. Now we know this was a lack of argument of debate.

hadder wrote:

Hadd's training philosophy is about balance. If you're weak on the aerobic side, you should train more at aerobic paces. If you're weak on the anaerobic side you should train more at anaerobic paces. Many people are horribly unbalanced and haven't developed their very slow paces at all. That's why they should train at these paces. Not because Hadd thought long slow distance was better than anything else.

Perfect ! 100% agree.

Then in the above post you did include training progresivity and training adaptation and i guess you got a condensed resume what´s Hadd training.

hadder wrote:

der der der der der wrote:

Where did Hadd ever, EVER, say that the slow running (i.e. HRmax - 50bpm) is nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running?!?

Hadd's training philosophy is about balance. If you're weak on the aerobic side, you should train more at aerobic paces. If you're weak on the anaerobic side you should train more at anaerobic paces. Many people are horribly unbalanced and haven't developed their very slow paces at all. That's why they should train at these paces. Not because Hadd thought long slow distance was better than anything else.

That is what was being discussed, aerobic development per Hadd. You didn't answer the pointed question.

hadder wrote:

Many people are horribly unbalanced and haven't developed their very slow paces at all. That's why they should train at these paces.

It is actually pretty common amongst runners that as they move up, their VDOT's at longer distances initially do not match their shorter race distance VDOT's.

Not because Hadd thought long slow distance was better than anything else.

Nobody except you brought that contention into this thread!

Sciatica Road wrote:

It is actually pretty common amongst runners that as they move up, their VDOT's at longer distances initially do not match their shorter race distance VDOT's.

Have you learned about VDOT. So cute!

Now, please don't litter this forum anymore with saying that Hadd promoted "LOTS OF" slow distance running. Rather, he wanted slow distance running to be in balance with the rest of your all training.

And you could also thank me for enlightening you.

0/10

It's obvious you are a troll, and/or have poor reading comprehension skills. Hadd actually did advocate A LOT of slow distance for aerobic development, whether you agree with it or not. You seem to be the only one contending whether that is Hadd's main point, and whether or not he advocated balance. You were outright wrong in asserting that Hadd thought slow running was "nowhere as important as the moderate to MP running".

One of Hadd's main assertions for poor aerobic development was that runner's run their mileage too fast; the other was that they didn't run enough mileage.

Poor aerobic development? That's not really true. You mean poor recovery and lack of pace development. Not the same thing at all.

Antonio, what is the right balance during a training week for a runner past the base period?

Example for myself: 17:30 5K runner

Day 1 8 miles w/7 @MP (6:30)

Day 2 6 miles easy

Day 3 8 miles easy + striders

Day 4 6 miles w/3 at LT pace (6:10)

Day 5 8 miles + striders

Day 6 12 miles w/6 @ MP (6:30)

Day 7 8 miles + striders

Total= 56 miles

This is missing mile, 5K, and 10K pace (excluding the striders)

How should I incoporate work at 4:55, 5:35, and 5:50 pace if I want to do my speedwork Ron Clarke style and follow the basic outline of the schedule above?

If you want to know about what would be Ron Clake training that fits to your need, you might ask him, i´m not competent to answer.

In my training kind if you want to do 4:55, 5:35, and 5:50 paces the faster pace (4:55) requires shorter interval sets and the medium pace of the 3 requires longer intervals than the 4:55 pace and the 5:50 pace the longest one intervals of the 3. Logic, don´t you think.

Ron Clake ? You need to ask him. I just based my comments on his training by what i read he says he did.

One of Hadd's main assertions for poor aerobic development was that runner's run their mileage too fast; the other was that they didn't run enough mileage.

sdfpgksdg wrote:

Poor aerobic development? That's not really true. You mean poor recovery and lack of pace development. Not the same thing at all.

Why do you say that is not true? Hadd based his assertion that one needs to keep a lot of their mileage below a certain intensity in order to achieve high aerobic development (i.e., numerous and larger mitochondria, capillary beds, aerobic enzymes) on a couple of studies using rats. He asserted that running too fast can be counterproductive to that.

António Cabral wrote:

...

There when Ron Clarke suggests tempo non-stop runs, I suggest long intervals that is near the same with benefits. BY instance the runner that does 10-15X4000m as a 5k specialist is distant to the training specificity still. But when he does 5X1500m or 4X2000m 3X3000m (like Crlos Lopes did when he approached a 10k run) or 3000m+2000m+1000m, he stands up in race pace so many minutes, so long, that is equivalent to a tempo run, and benefits with the rest/recover, the rest/recover aren´t problematic as with short intervals that does, and it´s still anaerobic as a single tempo run lime Ron Clark did it, and might be done more frequently because are less anaerobic that fast tempo ru s for the same total distance.

Hmmm. What paces/recovery would you suggest for your 3000/2000/1000 workout? My training partner and I did something like it in the summer, running 3000 at 10k pace, 2000 at 5k pace, 1000 at 3k pace with 1000m jog recovery.

Clarke and his mates did the same thing, in a way, every day except weekends. He'd usually race on Saturdays and do a long run on Sundays. During the weeks they maintained the routine he describes. BUT, you need to read his comments carefully. Some days they'd run faster as the session went on. On other days someone might quit if they were struggling too much or would drop back. Or one guy would pull well ahead of everyone else. So it was the same thing most days except when it was a different thing.