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

António Cabral wrote:

There I understand that while be a FT kind that possesses high aerobics he prefers tempos and non-stop workouts than intervals.

Wrong ! I wanted to say that Ron Clake is a ST KIND OF RUNNER and not FT. Sorry.

Sciatica Road wrote:

Hadd actually did advocate A LOT of slow distance for aerobic development, whether you agree with it or not.

Hadd advocated balanced running that includes lots of easy running, just like most other coaches do. However, if you've done a LOT OF easy running but never run at a truly slow pace, you will need a LOT OF slow running too. Balance, you see?

That's the toothpaste tube analogy. Hadd never contented that you should push A LOT on the end of the toothpaste tube. That wouldn't give you much toothpaste after a while. Rather you should push all over the tube, but start at the bottom (the slow paces).

As Hadd used individual cases and metaphors to illustrate his thinking, he unfortunately made it difficult for not so bright individuals to grasp the wholeness of his training. Although it doesn't really matter that you're clueless, it's a pity that you're unwilling to learn.

QUIT trolling the board hadder/Cabral. You're fooling nobody and it got old a couple of pages ago after it was obvious you were wrong and contradicting yourself. We were tired of your crap years ago.

Sciatica Road wrote:

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.

It's not true, because you are already 'aerobically developed'. If you keep in decent shape, you're not going to improve oxygen delivery no matter what you do. Improving performance is a different matter, . You have to develop fuel economy, speed and endurance and speed endurance, not the same thing at all.

It was Hadd's assertion. And it can be developed over months and years. And the aerobic development does fall off with detraining. Furthermore, it is not at all uncommon for a runner, even if they have been running for years, to find out that their VDOT at a longer distance (half and full marathon) is not as high as for shorter races. Hadd contended this was due to lack of aerobic development. Similar to Maffetone, Hadd's prescription for aerobic development, includes A LOT of easy mileage. (Hadd prescribed running at HRmax - 50bpm).

So I come to the conclusion that easy running all the time isn't going to get you anywhere. That's a reasonable argument. If you've done a significant amount of the low-end aerobic adaptations, then it's time to move up a bit and make more adaptations at faster paces and begin doing AT and anaerobic work. Where I get confused then is the ambiguous designation of easy running... If your LT moves up due to training the low end paces and some of the intermediate paces, then your easy days are still easy, i.e., still at a low heart rate but are now run at a faster pace. Pace is a specific thing whereas easy designates an effort level. You're still going to have plenty of easy running mixed in but with the adaptations made, the pace of those easy runs should increase along with the rest of the workouts. No?

In this line of thinking, does anyone really fully develop their LT with aerobic adaptations? Does anyone run the times they "should", from mile to marathon based on VDOT or some other signifier? Certainly each athlete will be better at particular distances than others but how do we know when someone has squeezed that entire tube of toothpaste from back to front? We've always been told that aerobic adaptations are near limitless but with diminishing returns once you reach a certain level. Is this a case of simply how many miles one can handle before breaking down or are we not patient enough to find out how far this idea extends?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The prudent thing seems to be to cover all the bases. High mileage build-up over the course of a competitive career, where the mileage gets divided into "easy running" (effort level) for recovery purposes and a spectrum of paces on days where you push through AeT, AnT, race-pace, and faster than race pace.

What I've taken away from this thread is that 1) You can't overdo the latter 2) Moderate running on a daily basis can lead to overtraining 3)You can do all of your speedwork ala Ron Clarke who preferred continuous progression/acceleration over intervals

I mainly agree with the three points you presented. If you don't like structured workouts (which seems to be your thing and I agree with that sentiment) then a lot of the non-easy day work can be done in the form of progression runs. And yes, running moderately hard all the time probably isn't the best way to go about things (although there are always exceptions and a few of those have been noted here). My last question was perhaps more philosophical than practical: how high can your LT get? Does it max out?

Opiate for the Masses wrote:

So I come to the conclusion that easy running all the time isn't going to get you anywhere. That's a reasonable argument. If you've done a significant amount of the low-end aerobic adaptations, then it's time to move up a bit and make more adaptations at faster paces and begin doing AT and anaerobic work.

Some of you got a single mind on Hadd training. easy runs. It´s ok, he prescribes it. However since the start and on Hadd Phase 1 LT workouts are includes frequently.

We shall agree that Joe schedule is a radical one the way is is out of shape, and with poor aerobic condition.

However Joe training includes Lt training - fast training that just easy aerobic steady state runs since the first week of training.

In other ordinary training cases, the Hadd mainstream training - Hadd sent me that files - the runner includes on weekly basis this sequence of workouts:

3X3200m (3x8laps=24 laps=9600m), 4X2400m (4X6laps=24laps=9600m), 6X1600m (6X4laps=24laps), 8X1200m=(8X3laps=24laps). Might be this is familar to some around the world he did coach.

In other cases he did use short interval training with short active intervals during the Phase 1 like 15X300m/5k pace with 100m ahead on the track in 35seconds

All this is just in Hadd Phase One ! ! !

John Hadd didn´t trust on linear periodisation, but multi periodisation, wich means that during the same phase of periodisation he prescribes easy runs, but also LT workouts, LTp workouts, and intervals.

Therefore most of the comments that build scenarios where he simply advices easy aerobic runs to improve the aerobic condition, it´s not correct, it´s not Hadd training eventually.

What´s true is that Hadd taught that the aerobic improve by easy aerobic stimulus (max HR - 50) is necessary and can´t be neglect in the training process.

I'm sure others have said this somewhere on this thread, but I'll chime in since I haven't yet. I haven't read the thread but here's my experience:

High mileage increases your potential for faster stuff later, increases your potential for a higher peak performance down the road. It's like a pyramid with high mileage and long tempos on the bottom. Mileage and long tempos allow a greater load and intensity of short threshold work, short threshold work allows for more volume and intensity of VO2 max work, and VO2 max work allows for more superVO2max work. To say high mileage didn't work for you because you couldn't blast 60s 400m reps off of base work is misunderstanding how it works. After a period of 100mpw, I had trouble running under 30.0 for 200m even with an 800m PR of 1:55. No big deal. I wasn't looking to run at 800m pace for another 3 months anyway.

Given the length of this thread I would hope others have chimed in with more thorough explanations.

From "Ron Clarke talks track pp18."

Since 1966 I alterned my training by including a little more rhythem and speed work in training as well as more track work, and it helped.

From "How they train, long distances", Wilt, pp31.

Occasionally, not more than once or twice per week, his training includes 8-10x220 yards with 220 yards recovery jogging after each, or 10x 440 yards with 40 yards recovery jogging after each. These are run at a fast but not exhausting pace, either before or after the usual evening's long fast continuous run.

Clarke told me he kept his legs moving quickly during the recoveries, so they were more like coasting (than the jogging reported by Wilt). I believe Clarke said he ran 110's in this fashion too. Viren did the same.

From "Ron Clarke talks track" pp80.

I came across (Gamoudi) doing some very interesting sessions at Mexico City. One of them was a session I tried to do at sea level and found very difficult and yet Gamoudi was coping with it very well at Mexico.

That was a serious of 3000 meters, usually three or four with about a 15 minute break between. The first 1000 of each was run at a very slow pace, the next 10000 was run at 5000 meter pace, and the last 10000 was run as fast as possible. The ones we timed him at were always run at about 2:30 for the last 1000 meters.

It may seem like a simple session but I tried to duplicate that session at sea level both in 1969 and 70 and found it extremely difficult, and yet Gamoudi was running three or four of them at altitude.

From "How They Train, long distances" Wilt pp46.

Summer track training in Mexico City.

Monday 9/30/68

5x 2km - 5:22.5, 5:28.5, 5:38.6, 5:47.7, 5:41.8 (5:35.8 average)

jog 800m in 4 to 4:40 after each

pm - 40 minutes easy running on grass

8x 120m sprints, jog 60m after each

Tuesday 10/01/68

35 minutes easy running, 10 minutes calisthenics, 25 minutes easy running

Wednesday 10/02/68

15x 200m in 28.3 (30.0 to 27.0) jog 100m after each

pm - 40 minutes easy on grass

Thursday 10/03/68

3000m in 3:08, 2:59, 2:31.6 (8:38.6)

walk 20 minutes

3000m in 3:10, 3:00.8, 2:33.7 (8:44.5)

Friday 10/04/68

65 minutes easy continuous running

Saturday 10/05/68

5000m in 14:02.8

J.R. wrote:

[quote]or 10x 440 yards with 440 yards recovery

I certainly don't have great ability. It was a very hard workout that was the big one two weeks before a race.

But your discussion makes good sense to me, and perhaps I'll try some of these repeats using your estimates over the winter and spring.

Guppy wrote:

High mileage increases your potential for faster stuff later, increases your potential for a higher peak performance down the road.

No big deal. I wasn't looking to run at 800m pace for another 3 months anyway.

Guppy - when you are referring to reaping the benefits down the road, are you talking 3-4 months?

hadder wrote:

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.

Ironic that you are so arrogant on this thread, and put others down for supposedly not understanding Hadd's training (which they actually do), while you clearly don't understand Maffetone's recommendations, yet you act like you do.

Sciatica Road wrote:

It was Hadd's assertion. And it can be developed over months and years. And the aerobic development does fall off with detraining. Furthermore, it is not at all uncommon for a runner, even if they have been running for years, to find out that their VDOT at a longer distance (half and full marathon) is not as high as for shorter races. Hadd contended this was due to lack of aerobic development. Similar to Maffetone, Hadd's prescription for aerobic development, includes A LOT of easy mileage. (Hadd prescribed running at HRmax - 50bpm).

It's not lack of aerobic development, it's lack of endurance. Can't you understand the difference?

max219 wrote:

Guppy wrote:

High mileage increases your potential for faster stuff later, increases your potential for a higher peak performance down the road.

No big deal. I wasn't looking to run at 800m pace for another 3 months anyway.

Guppy - when you are referring to reaping the benefits down the road, are you talking 3-4 months?

In my case, yes, but it doesn't have to take that long. It also depends on what event you're training for. It's going to take longer to transition from base to peak 800m fitness than from base to peak 10k fitness.

But yeah, my main point was that doing high mileage and long steady runs are probably not going to make you a faster 800m-3000m runner in the short term. You'll have to turn your general aerobic fitness into race specific fitness, and this takes a little while. In the classic Lydiard model it took 6 weeks, but of course nobody trains by a strict classic Lydiard model any more.

Say I'm a 1500/5000m runner planning to peak in May who has the luxury of redshirting indoor. I'd do high mileage and long steady runs starting after cross country and do that through January. In February I'd start doing a few more short threshold workouts and an occasional easy VO2 max workout (something like 4x1600m @ just a bit slower than 5000m pace), and I'd be sure I was getting in plenty of strides. I'd continue that through March so I could run a decent 5000m at Stanford but still not peak. In April the volume would drop a little and the VO2 max workouts would get more intense, but I'd still do at least one threshold workout each week. I'd get in a few faster workouts at 800m-1500m race pace, and then I'd taper the week of conference for a peak. The whole idea is to gradually alter the focus from volume to intensity over the course of your season without ever totally ignoring any one type of training. You should be doing strides during base, and you should be doing the occasional long run or long tempo even in the last quarter of the season. The exact makeup of your training plan will depend on your individual needs and the event you're training for.

For what it's worth, I ran no better doing 100mpw than I did at 70mpw until the very end of the season when I tapered. Then I had a huge improvement from the previous season.

dsrunner wrote:

if you could run 120 miles/week at 8 pace or 150 miles per week at 9 pace would you honestly expect it to be helpful?

Umm...yeah. Yeah I would. Maybe not 150. Just make sure there are a lot of big hills, and do it at altitude if possible. Then speedwork 8-10 weeks before big race.