LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Hodgie-san wrote:

I appreciate Daniels work, his studies, but see little value in the VDOT method.

HS runners primary objective should be to have fun, enjoy the comraderie and test their limits without being run into the ground with excessive interval/anaerobic running.

OK, just some random thoughts.

Those are good thoughts, and I agree with your assessment on training HS runners. I don't ever want to see one of my runners crawling off the training track. If they crawl off after giving their all in a race, I can live with that. It is also one of the hardest things to convey to a HS runner.

Could you elaborate a little on why you don't find value in the VDOT tables? Do you work more with goal pace, or do you have another method for determining workout paces? I'm just curious as I work with a bunch of kids that have a wide variety of abilities.

Great discussion. I'm learning a bunch from both sides.

DougM : I envy you I have not figured out the quote command yet !!!

Thanks for your insight to JD. As a result of this discussion I am in the process of re reading his book.

I find your comment about one Anaerobic workout a week interesting. I have heard Arthur say the same thing in regard to some athletes. If an athlete found a workout particularly hard (Anaerobic !!) he would suggest easy running until "The 'zip' came back" into the legs. Sometimes that maybe 3 or 4 days.

The similarities are gradually starting to show.

I too, like Nobby have huge respect for JD.

Total aside here Team. Have been suffering from a knee problem for quite a few weeks now and yesterday was running through (and up !!) some Bush Tracks (Old Jack Foster course) with some visiting English High School kids when I really started to find things rather painful. Result : Torn Meniscus in my left knee. Surgoen appointment in two weeks.

So role on thsi discussion. If I am laid up for a day or 2 I maybe able to contribute more.

Hodgie-san:

Genki-desuka? It's been a while. How are you? Now you know about me and reading--I'm slow! So no, I have not read Lindgren story. I've had a great opportunity to meet with his coach, Tracy Walters, in Spokane years ago. He gave me some interesting insights.

Now I'm actually patting my back, having getten this thread on the original track of comparison, an obligation to Snookie.

One of the questions I had, which I probably didn't convey too well a few messages ago, was actually Hodgie-san's point to a degree. I have no doubt the Daniels formula would make it very much easier to figure out the workout speed; however, coming from the Lydiard school of thinking, wouldn't it be better to focus more on long easy aerobic type training during high school? Basically shouldn't they be running more at easier pace and less interval/reps type training?

I understand Oh jees' point; I agree, running reps on track would reqire special type of discipline and it's a hard work. To me, that's more of a reason why high school kids should do more hill training than reps on track.

Now I'm talking nonsense here. This is wishful thinking. High school coaches have to produce regional and/or state champs. But isn't it one of major concerns for young athletes burning out?

SeeFitzRun:

Kim already covered your question but felt obliged to respond anyways.

Sprint training is just that; sprint training. Lydiard believed that too many distance runners spend way too much time concentrating running a lot and repetitions and not enough to work on technique and sprinting speed. He used to have his distance men and marathon runners enter 100m and 200m at club level meets.

Drills mainly include high knee exercise, bounding on flat, what Lydiard calls "striding" (like drawing a circle with your leg???), and run-tall exercises. Runner's World had an excellent article written by coach Bill Dellinger in the 80s. Exercises include high knee, "zombi", butt-kick, skipping, etc. One of the athletes shown in the article was Tom Byers.

As Kim stated, they ran quite a bit even during an "easy" day with the schedule calling for only 10X100m. Lydiard said they jogged 4 miles to the local track and 4 miles back, skipping a closer track so they can get some miles in. And, yes, morning jog as supplementary exercise.

If you are asking "sprint training" in between hill training days; Lydiard has said "leg-speed" would be a good exercise to perform on those alternate days. After 1000 miles of "slow" jogging, your leg turn-over needs to be revived. So the idea is simply to move your legs as fast as you can, approximately 10X100~150m (with warm-up and cool-down). He used to prescribed 3 days of hills and 3 days of leg-speed. But those were days when his runners did tons of hill running. If the hill is short, or if you can't handle hills, say, more than 30 minutes; I'd opt to include at least one long jog of 90 minutes or so just to keep your aerobic development going. If having so many days of speed oriented training in a week, don't hesitate to take an easy jog day(s).

I had Jack as a coach at SUNY Cortland.

His training plans work !

I tried doing the leg speed drills on alternate days during the hill training phase, but found that my legs needed to recover instead and mostly just ran easy on those days (I'm no spring chicken you know!, though I still got in some mileage (mid-90s for the week). I figured the fast downhill running and sprints I was doing as part of the hill circuits was getting most of that job done anyway.

Hopefully Dr. Daniels will weigh in here eventually. But so far, this has been a great thread.

The Rep workouts can certainly be demanding and this has been a concern of mine.

My interpretation of the DRF is that Phase II's primary focus on Reps is intended to improve an athlete's economy in preparation for the Interval (VO2 Max) focus in Phase III while minimize overall stress to the athlete.

My concern is the length of the perscribed Reps. There is a significant difference between 200 Reps (between 30-40 seconds) and 400-800 (between 65-2:30 seconds). Lactic Acid appears to accumulate and "take it's toll" after about 35-40 seconds. Once this threshold is crossed the body must shift focus and find a way to deal with the LA build up, rather than maintain economy. This is clearly evident in the end of most 400m races. This shift at about 40 seconds is often to the detriment of proper form and thus economy.

It would seem that Reps of say 30-40 seconds (regardless of distance) would enable an athlete to develop economy without crossing into the "No Man's Land" of excessive LA buildup.

There is a clear message in DRF to train with an express purpose and therefore within the scientific parameters of intensity and duration. Wouldn't the purpose of Phase II, to improve economy and prepare for Phase III while limiting the overall stress to the athlete, be jepordized by long (45-2:30) Rep training?

This may explain why a number of HS coaches using DRF have noted there athletes often peak too early in a competive season. As Lydiard noted, the body can only managed a higher ph for a limited period of time. Perhaps if Phase II were modified to avoid LA buildup by using only Reps of 30-40 second duration the Phase II purpose of improving economy without excessive stress could be achieved more effectively.

Now if Phase II were completed in this way (avoiding LA buildup), the similarities between Lydiard and Daniels would become more apparent. Phase II of DRF would be appear much more like the transitional Hill Springing Phase of Lydiard, with each phase preparing for Anaerobic or DRF "Interval" training.

To DougM & Nobby-san,

Kon-ee-chee-wa.

For a novice runner, HS age, I would base everything on their 400m time. After some preliminary running for basic fitness over several weeks let them run some time trials to determine a “comfort zone” for future workouts/development.

HS runners have more than ample opportunity to test themselves in races. The good coaches incorporate these races into the development scheme of each runner. Each runner is given the opportunity to test themselves at various race distances. I see no need for the majority of HS runners to do any more than 3 miles of intervals on the track each week. Given the number of races many HS’s run they may not require even that much.

Workouts like 10x200m or 10x 300m in combination with a week that includes races of 800m-2m is plenty of interval work. Combine this with an average of 8 10 miles a day of running (with some doubles) with a 10-12m run from time to time and you have all of the ingrediants that you need.

Underlying everything is the consistent aerobic running, that is where the largest gains will be made though perhaps it can take a bit longer than an all out assault of intervals which results in rapidly diminishing returns.

For me, Lydiard way equals “fool proof” way. Most everything that he has said and wrote has resonated with me.

Nobby wrote:

I understand Oh jees' point; I agree, running reps on track would reqire special type of discipline and it's a hard work. To me, that's more of a reason why high school kids should do more hill training than reps on track.

Suppose coach Lydiard said to you, "Nobby, you've been running your 100-miles-a-week base for a few months now and things have gone well. Today I'd like you to do the following. Go out on the grass field and run its length (roughly 200m) at a completely relaxed, brisk pace. Pretend you're racing a mile. OR if you wish, go to that gentle hill over there (roughly 150-200m) and run up it at that same intensity. Either way, do it 16 times. Between each, walk or jog at least a couple minutes. Take more time if you want. Make sure you're completely recovered before each one. We're simply working on the mechanics of brisk, relaxed running, here. We want nothing anaerobic."

Question: Did Lydiard ask you to do a "rep" workout?

The answer is: No, not in his terminology.

Now replace "Lydiard" with "Daniels" in the long paragraph.

Question: Did Daniels ask you to do a "rep" workout?

The answer is: Yes, in his terminology.

I hate to say this.

But you are making my exact point.

You can't see the difference.

Oh jees... wrote:

I hate to say this.

But you are making my exact point.

You can't see the difference.

Only if you're point is one of the following:

1. A Daniels rep workout isn't painful.

2. A Daniels rep workout can be done on a hill.

3. A Daniels rep workout can be done on a grassy field.

4. A Daniels rep workout is not a Lydiard rep workout.

(BTW, a Lydiard rep workout IS demanding.)

5. "Rep" is a word can used in various ways.

6. Folks should not only "deeply respect" men such as Daniels and Lydiard; they should also carefully read them!

Daniels was my coach you clown.

As someone stated before, Daniel's REP workouts are pretty easy actually- try them at your VDOT pace using the recommended recovery and you'll see! They are roughly at mile pace and they are at pretty much full recovery for the rest. I think his REPS in Phase II are more for efficiency than lactate tolerance since there is a huge rest period. Of course there will be points in the season where you will want to run your REPS faster than race pace, etc. to improve lactate tolerance, but the PHASE II REP in DRF phase just isn't as hard as you would think it is.

I haven't read any Lydiard books, but I got my hands on an outline from a Lydiard seminar. Now, Nobby or Kim, please correct me if I am wrong, but would it be safe to say that Lydiard goes from quantity at the beginning of the season to quality at the end. Something along the lines of a huge base, then thresholds, hills, longer repeats and finally shorter and faster repeats?

Oh jees... wrote:

Daniels was my coach you clown.

Then you should be well placed to make a clear assertion and provide a reference in DRF to support it.

He would respond to explain the similarities and the slight differences based on science. That man loves to talk to all people and makes time for them regardless of his schedule. Jack sits, listens, and desires make running the best possible with breaking down the science into simple matters.

bug:

As a matter of fact, Arthur couldn't have said it better himself. That's exactly what he told me when I first got together with him (after studying what I'd been doing). In fact, he said "You'd better do repetitions or intervals," in that terminology.

Nobby

I have, in the past, done several training cycles straight out of DRF. The repetitions were hard work for me, but I am much more of a marathoner than a miler. I was always glad to be done with them. I ran some good road races off of that system, but could never nail a good marathon on it. I did the best off of shorter phases (4 weeks instead of 6). I think I get worn down by too much anaerobic work.

To me, the main difference between the Lydiard hill phase and the Daniels rep phase, is that the reps take you (or at least me)deep into anaerobic territory. There is no point in a Lydiard hill workout where I am sucking wind like I am at the end of my 10th 400 at mile pace.

I have a question for any coaches/runners who strictly employ the methods of Arthur Lydiard. Obviously it is a well know fact that during the base period his runners ran 100 "near aerobic best" miles and totaled around 120-150 miles a week including supplemental running, but not much has been said about what tpye of mileages are employed in the other phases. Specifically for a middle distance runner, what type of mileages would be associated with the hill phase, the anaerobic phase, the coordination phase, and the racing and tapering phase? If anyone has any firsthand experience with Arthur's take on this, it would be greatly appreciated.