Lydiard.....emperors clothes?

That makes sense to me. So is there any reason for doing long runs at an effort below "high steady" except to avoid injury or burnout?

I do the majority of my runs below this steady state because im still building fitness. I have had no injuries doing this. I think i remember reading that Lydiard said that you will progress but not as fast.

I now know by feel what "finishing in pleasantly tired state is"

For me Lydiard training is wonderful, The principles are black and white however it reallly requires me to be aware of whats going on in my body.

I like to ask myself during and after a run: What is my body telling me?

Nobby,

Thank you for the clarification. I am looking forward to the book.

You know I was just playing with these numbers and it could be possible to use the % of maximal steady state.

As I read his work it seems as if he is describing vVo2 velociy at maximal oxygen consumption. (3k race pace)

"The maximum limit is called the "Steady State", the level at which you are working to the limit of your ability to breathe in, transport, and use the oxygen."

He wrote that "For best results, you should exercise between 70 and 100 of your maximum aerobic effort. This, therefore, is not Long Slow Distance."

We know that 70% would be 1/4, and 4/4 would be 100%. So im guessing that if it were to be put in pace terms, it would be the following. (There is 25% equal difference between 1/4th and 4/4th, so it would be equal (10%) between 70-100%?)

It would be possible to do Lydiards program given your current 3k time.

Monday 10 miles (15km) at 1/2 effort over undulating course

Tuesday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat

Wednesday 12 miles (20km) at 1/2 effort over hilly course

Thursday 18 miles (30km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat

Friday 10 miles (15km) at 3/4 effort over flat course

Saturday 22 miles (35km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat

Sunday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over any type terrain

70% = 1/4

80% - 1/2 ?

90% - 3/4 ?

100% = 4/4

3k – 8:00 – 64/400m

70% - 6:05/mi – 1:31/400m

80% - 5:20/mi – 1:20/400m

90% - 4:44/mi – 71/400m

100% - 4:17.5/mi – 64/400m

80-85% of vVo2 (3k) – 5:20- 5:01 marathon pace (2:19:50 – 2:11:30)

3k – 9:00 – 72/400m

70% - 6:51/mi - 1:42.8/400m

80% - 6:00/mi - 1:30/400m

90% - 5:20/mi - 1:20/400m

100% - 4:49.7/mi – 72/400m

80-85% of vVo2 (3k) – 6:00- 5:38 marathon pace (2:37:18- 2:27:42)

3k – 12:00 – 96/400m

70% - 9:08/mi - 2:17/400m

80% - 8:00/mi - 2:00/400m

90% - 7:07/mi - 1:46/400m

100% - 6:26/mi – 96/400m

80-85% of vVo2 (3k) – 8:00 – 7:32 marathon pace (3:29:45 – 3:17:30)

I agree that a lot of long runs done easy is a great way to avoid injury while still developing your aerobic fitness. But I believe some running experts say that easy runs are almost as effective at developing your capillary network as steady state runs and that they burn a higher percentage of fat at the expense of glycogen. Training your body to burn fat apparently makes it easier to access fat as fuel during a race. I think maybe Maffetone is one coach who ascribes to this theory.

Acute and chronic bouts of exercise affect the organ stucture of the cells. As we know running slower, we have to run longer to get in a stimulus response. Running faster, we cannot run as long as when running slower, but we get a greater stimulus response.

When training properly we want structural damaage to the tissues which lead to an impared function. Tissue repair leads to an adaptive response, making our cells (heart, skeletal, vascular etc.) more resistent. Thus an increase in exercise capacity and enhanced functional capacity. An increase in oxygen utilization effeciency and enhanced muscle power and fatigue resistence.

I though the way he changed his schedule was brilliant.

"I also found that by alternating the length

of the runs by running 10 miles one day and 20 the next, rather than by running 15 miles a day, I gained

better results."

This is the best way to train and allow your body to adapt. Increase in time & intensity and allow for recovery.

I have also found that a variety of distances and efforts have produced greater results than doing the same 10-mile run day in and day out. I've also found that a three-to-four-week period of mostly LSD training seems to improve my ability to run long at a faster pace without any additional effort. This is especially true after a somewhat more intense period of base building that includes harder-than LSD runs. But I guess you could that is another form of variety.

For those concerned about the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 speeds. Here's an example of the chart Lydiard used based on your best 6mile and a 6mi run:

Best 6-mile

3/4 speed

1/2 speed

1/4 speed

28:00

28:40

29:20

30:00

29:00

29:40

30:20

31:00

30:00

30:40

31:20

32:00

31:00

31:40

32:20

33:00

33:00

33:40

34:20

35:00

Silver spoon wrote:

In modern pentathlon. Get real - that's not an athlete. That's someone who can make his own grey poupon, and who knows which spoon to use on caviar.

Not funny, and not true. And if you don't consider Dr. Daniels an athlete, you haven't met him, and you surely don't know him.

____________________________________________________________

I'm not sure what your above calculations are supposed to do....

When Arthur said 1/4, 1/2 etc efforts he was talking about the effort for that day, not anything related to peak racing season race speeds... When you are running maximum mileage per week you will not be able to run a 10 or 15 mile run anywhere near a fast as you could if you were "fresher". When one is in the "marathon phase" in the Lydiard program one first works at achieving the "mileage goal" that he has in mind for the 3, 4, 5....months. Just getting to that mileage may take a month. Next you maintain that mileage for the duration of the period. In the inital weeks you may average 7:00/mile. In the last week you may average 6 or 6:20...

Concentrate on achieving the proper mileage per week FIRST. The speed that this mileage is run will naturally increase from week to week.

Last recommendation. Don't wear a watch during the Marathon Phase. Look at a clock or leave the started watch in the garage etc. That way you can enjoy the run more and concentrate on maintaining the proscribed effort....

I was just trying to figure out what the effort level was based on. With the numbers above I was just plugging in what it would be based on a % of vO2max velocity. So far on this thread it has been said it is in reference to 5k time, 6mile run, and the effort for that given day. If you tell your athlete I want you to run 3/4 effort. You would need a reference point of that 3/4. Is it something that he would use that was based on all three?

Nobby wrote, "I honestly believe they'd [slower, 4-6 hour marathon runners] be much better off if they stick to time-base training instead of this "magic" 22 miles. 3 hours would be probably max for the last long run. I would NOT recommend anyone to go beyond that."

Most of these discussions have been focusing on training for the marathon distance. Would Lydiard/his plan allow for longer training runs for ultramarathon runners? I race 50k, 50m, 100m, and 24hrs (at 3:36, 6:20, 18:50trail, 130goal/06). One branch of ultrarunners does 30-35 mile training runs once a week, with sometimes a second, midweek run of 20-25 miles. A common pace (for me) on these would be 8 min/mile (rolling/road). This pace would seem to be well-within Lydiard's pacing terminology and, interestingly, Hadd's HR zone.

1) Would you think that this is too long for one run? No off days are taken before or needed after this run: seems to be within Lydiard's guidelines.

2) The pace "feels" appropriate and "comfortably tiring." Seems to be within Lydiard's guidelines. Is that enough to keep it there?

3) With regard to the "don't take in CHO during a long run to force it to adapt" idea, wouldn't I need a pass for a run this long?

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your consideration.

Eric, regarding Arthur's "Tables of Effort". I believe he developed them through much trial and error in the 1950's. Where he came up with the actual tables I don't know but each one is based on an athletes "best" effort.

I used the example of a 15 minute 3 miler earlier.

The "efforts" were also a guide and I believe one of the aspects was to stop athletes from "Racing" training.

Bill B was 'hot' on that topic and many times told athletes to stop "racing" their work.

An aside on the "Effort" Runs.

When I was 'struggling' with one of my athletes who liked to race his work, He was not good at holding together for say a "Half effort run". Arthur suggested to me that we find a course that took him 25 to 30 minutes to run fairly quickly but 'comfortably'. I had one of my other athletes run it with him to make sure he did not push the pace too much, ie Hold him back if necessary !

I don't have my notes with me but if I remember rightly he took something like 26 minutes to complete the circuit.

Arthur then said that every time he runs that course he is to take about 5 to 10 seconds off each time but is not to "hammer" himself into the ground.

He duly did that and we found he improved greatly.

Really what Arthur was doing was saying that there is not a set method for every athlete and we must adjust according to each ones needs. That athlete never ran anything like those efforts again.

Another totally unrelated topic. Just a few days ago I was told that one of my students who is an outstanding Rower and has been picked for New Zealand to attend the World Junior Championships was put through a V02 Max test by the Exercise Physiologists at RowingNZ and she literally blew the rest of the athletes off the erg.

Interestingly this young woman has run with me during winter up to 3 times a week interspersed with her Rowing workouts (also 3 times a week)for the last 3 years.

The first day she ran with us she was in tears after 15 minutes. In March she turned out (In between Rowing Champs) and won our Conference 800 and 1500 on the same day. Times were slow but we are "Racers" not "Pacers".

We have a hill (mentioned before) that we run at least twice a week and as we say "No Mountain Biker has ever beaten us up the hill". Laura (the young lady mentioned) can run that hill with our 1:55 800 m runners.

She is no runner to look at but because she has been consistent with her work she finds it no problem to run for what ever time we decide.

When I heard that news about Laura the first person I thought of was Arthur Lydiard. He would have been delighted.

Nobby,

I think you'll enjoy this story. A few weeks back, I was having dinner with Tom Fleming. I made reference to you as "the main Lydiard proponent in the US", based on your Lydiard Foundation position. Fleming immendiately went on the attack, essentially trying to claim that position for himself. His reaction was likely both a comment on my impolitic mode of expressing myself and his commitment to Lydiard's teachings. Clearly, you can count on him to be "preaching the Lydiard gospel."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Quite a thread.

Based upon A. Lydiards' comment: if you cannot run the Waitak in 2:20 you're "wasting your time" I query as follows:

does this mean that, if one lacks the talent to run at

7-minute per mile pace on ones' training runs with impunity, one should just accept the genetic roll of the dice and run for pure enjoyment?

I have reached the age (50 +) where racing is not so much fun anymore (post surgery, sciatica and PF), might I not

be better served by just running for sheer enjoyment?

I read these tales of running 22 miles in 2:15 with great envy. 2:26 was my best 20 mile split in my last (and FINAL unless some incredible improvement occurs) marathon.

My only exposure to ultra runners was when I was in NZ in 84, I met a couple of fairly good ultra guys (I think it\'s quite popular downunder). One Sunday morning I was running with Ray Puckett and a couple of his buddies (I think we were doing something like 2:20--never shorter than 2 hours when I ran with Ray on Sunday), we ran into them. A few months prior to that, we saw them competing in a 24-hour run around the track. We ran together and I asked them how they train. They said basically, the routine is not that different--they have job and family and they really can\'t afford to run 3 or 4 or 5 hours a day. They DO go for a long run of at least 2 hours on weekend, sometimes longer.

It seems to me, this magic number Lydiard stumbled upono by accident, 2-hours or more, is fairly good indication. His runners, track people, went as far as 3+ hours and I think it\'s easily done. I\'m not sure if it\'s \"necessary\" for ultra athletes to go much beyond that. Could, I\'m sure. But should they? I don\'t know.

Interestingly, when you take a look at Van Aaken\'s training, I believe he had recommended DAILY training distance for 400m runner being 6km, 15km for 1500m runner, 25km for 5000m runner and so one... Then 40km for marathon runner. I don\'t know of his reasoning for that (Vladimir? HRE?) but they weren\'t linear ratio. 40k was sort of a cap. What if the racing distance goes up to, say, 100km? Would he have thought 40k is enough for that or should the runner run further than that? It would be interesting...

I mentioned this in Van Aaken thread but I knew of this coach in Japan who had his runners do extreme LSD. They would \"jog\" something like 12-minute-mile pace but they sometimes go as long as 4 or 5 hours straight. They sometimes do 6-hour hiking as well. His most notable runner, Eriko Asai, ran 2:27 and represented Japan in 88 Olympics. I believe two guys ran 2:11 based on this training method.

In regards to energy gel (I shouldn\'t get into this again...), in ultra races, your primary energy source would be fat and therefore there should be more of a reason why you should train your body to use fat rather than CHO, I would assume??? I had a discussion on carbo-loading (as we know) with Lydiard once. It was interesting that he said the type of carbo-loading is more necessary for shorter distances (even 800 or 1500) because they get highly anaerobic and anaerobic metabolism is much less efficient at using up glycogen; therefore you need more glycogen to burn. I believe they brought a bucketful of honey to Tokyo for Peter and John (Davies) to take everyday throughout the competition. Snell ran 6 races in 7 days.

Ancient One:

You'll have to remember who (or should I say "To Whom"?) this comment was addressed to: Jeff Julian. And anybody who know Jeff, this where they laugh. Arthur was a great psychologist. He knew how to fire up some people, how to motive others; master of using "candy and whip" as we say it in Japan. Julian, known by Japanese in the 60s as "King Julian", was known to have run 200 miles a week...back in the 60s while holding a full-time job. Once he was yelling at Jeff, saying "You'll never make a runner until you run..." He was going to say "300 miles a week" but thought Jeff might actually do it so instead said "...500 mile a week!" Now this does NOT mean you won't make a runner until you run 500 miles a week. When Arthur yelled out that comment to Jeff, Jeff was a young runner from country, liked to party Saturday night, staying up late. He would come out to Waitak absolutely wasted, just trotting along for the sake of covering the distance. Arthur knew he was in much better shape than that (I believe Jeff still holds the fastest Waitak in something like 1:55, right Kim?). For original Arthur's Boys, "trotting" Waitak in 2:20 or 2:30 is no problem.

Ancient One,

In 87 years a person can say lots of things. Arthur certainly did. But you can't take all of them at face value. You're talking about a single sentence spoken moe than 40 years agoThe early things that he said and wrote really were about runners who were competing for national and international championships. If you're talking about someone who could hold 5:10-5:30 pace for a marathon, maybe 2:20 for 22 miles represents some sort of watershed.

Kim's got a post on this thread where he says that most of those Waitaks were done in 2:25-2:30, so there was a bit of time wasting going on there. I've got a story about Barry Magee sending South Korea's best marathoners out for 20 mile "jogs." Neither Arthur nor Barry ever advised me to do anything with the long runs other than to do them and enjoy them. Your question, I think, shows why "Lydiard people" are so hesitant to talk in specific numbers.

I'm not sure what to make of the comment about running for pure enjoyment. If that means giving up on the idea of being moderately fast or pushing yourself for the feeling of accomplishment that comes from setting big goals, relative to your ability, and attaining them, I'd say no.

If you're saying that we need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we'll likely have to do something besides run to pay the rent and that we're running because we like it, well, yes. But that's true for a lot of fairly fast people.

OH. So if you're past your prime and plan to stick to racing at 10K and under what should a logical duration for your long run be?

Improvement is what most of us are seeking. Either for

others we coach/advise or for ourselves.

The 2+ hour runs appear to be vital, especially for

marathoners. I would guess that Snell and Halberg

would even say that they are necessary for 1500 and

5K runners.

I feel that slower ( much slower ) runners benefit from

runs well in excess of 3 hours. I have done enough of

runs of that duration in 2006 that I no longer have

much fear or dread of facing a 3+ hour run on an almost

weekly basis.

Vladimir, HRE and possibly some others are much more

familiar with van Aaken's ideas than me, but I always

felt that his mileage suggestion, eg 40K daily for a

marathonner was an ideal that he could imagine, but

was not necessarily what he envisioned anyone, but

the most elite professional runners ever actually

doing.

Arthur's ideas seemed to become more like van Aakens

asw Arthur became more and more immersed in advising

recreational runners versus the elite he is most

identified with.