Correction : I mean I would be lying if I tell it do not makes me feel good.
Correction : I mean I would be lying if I tell it do not makes me feel good.
400 repeats at 100-105? Now why didn't I think of that?
6:30-6:45 per mile and I'd be grinning at the finish line and for me it would be a comeback of Epic Proportions & be MOST satisfying.
THANK YOU.
Kim: I will take your advice on pushing the envelope on that long run back to 90:00.
Modest goals I have for now, but to pop 7's would be most satisfying.
(hmmm...does that sound vaguely Yoda-ish?)
johnny:
I don't think Arthur even had an access himself to a 20km long uphill. But I don't think he would object (though not all the time). However, one advice is to make sure you include downhill section as well. You need both.
Okay, Yoda. When you pop 7's, make sure you give ME a credit! But seriously, not so fast though. Like I said, that would be the quick way to do it (a quick-fix). Instead of just jumping into the 400m reps; make sure you take a gradual approach. After all these years, 100 sec. 400 would feel like all-out sprint (been there, done that!).
* Do 200 at 50~52 sec. instead of 400 in 100.
* If you try 400, don't time them at first; get used to them first.
* And don't even set the numbers at first. Repeat till you "hit the wall". If you get stuffed after, say, 5 repeats, that's fine. Pack it up and jog home. In a week or two, you'll be doing 7 or 8 or 10.
Hill phase of the Lydiard program would take care of this "transition". Even the repetitions, they should follow a certain pattern of gradual increase in numbers, distance and/or intensity.
Nobby-One
this thread needs to be saved somehow, like put on a disc or something. Far too much good information on here to be lost.
Understanding you, I am.
Yep, downhill is the problem although I hear that there are actually some treadmills today that have a downhill capability. That long uphill run really works out the hams and quads. on the treadmill, you have complete control of the hills, of course. i'm thinking about doing my long 2 hour plus Sunday run on the treadmill as an uphill run and see what happens. it will be quite a challenge.
Second the motion for saving this thread. Wejo, could we perhaps get this thing archived or something? Maybe added to the "Good Threads" thread?
I have had a couple treadmills that go downhill. One was customo made and the other we just put the back support up on 10X10 wooden blocks then with a carpenter's level determined what grade the TM had to be set on to make it level (I think it was about 8 or 10%). Several fairly fast miles at 8% down hill and I couldn't recover the quads for a full week. I imagine working into it gradually and you could get some very beneficial training, especially for Boston. On another note, when I was coaching Ken Martin he did all his long (2hour) runs on his TM at 2% (upgrade not down) and 10MPH and he was at altitude. That was leadiing up to a 2nd place finish at NY City in a mid 2:09 time. I have also done VO2 studies with some runners running on a TM for 2 hours at recent marathon race pace, just to see if economy deteriorated over time -- it did not. I also once ran a marathon during which a friend drove up alongside me every half hour (where we had previously measured and marked the ground)and I put on the head gear and nose clip and had expired air samples collected to see how that went during an actual marathon race. I probably have more good unpublished data on runners than anyone around -- gotta retire some day and get after these publications.
CraigMac wrote:
Second the motion for saving this thread. Wejo, could we perhaps get this thing archived or something? Maybe added to the "Good Threads" thread?
Just make sure you delete the contributions of those who respectfully disagreed with the experts and got there nuts kicked = A trend through the whole 900 pages as I see it.
>>Dr. Exag = Skuj. Do a search if you doubt.<<
Nope.
I AM a Lydiardite....
I think before I registered the name 'Dr. Exag' Skuj posted as Dr. Exag.
Skuj = many psuedonyms, but not mine!
Tinman wrote:
Seasonal anaerobic development? First, it depends upon some key factors. Foremost, it depends upon the individual. What works for Jo man not work for Sam. Jo may have a high percentage of fast twitch (type 2) fibers and therefore could handle far more "anaerobic" work than Sam. It really comes down to the percentages of fast twitch fibers you have inherited from you parents, especially your mother.
The second factor is the event you are going to focus on. Is it the mile or the marathon? This makes a lot of difference. Why? Simple - event requirements!
In the case of the marathon, the worst thing you can do is overdevelop your anaerobic capaicty (more specifically your anaeorbic power). If you do so when you are aiming for a marathon you won't perform well. You'll burn carbs way too fast and you will erode aerobic efficiency. You'll be relying on your anaerobic capacity to provide ATP. For example, a 3 hour marathoner aiming for 6:52 per mile would use about 2-3% anaerobic, on average, as they run along IF THEY OVERDEVELOPED ANAEROBIC CAPACITY (instead of just under 1%, which is ideal for a 3-hour runner).
At about 18 miles the inefficiency of using 2-3% anaerobic will catch up with a marathoner and start to cause early fatigue. By 21 miles their pace will slow by 30 or more seconds per mile. They have burned up the carbs from their legs and liver. By the end, they fall apart, running a couple minutes a mile slower than their intended pace.
Now, on the other hand,a miler will need to develop more anaerobic capacity and power than a marathoner. If anaerobic capacity is low but aerobic capacity is high, a miler will run a good mile but finish with the feeling that they "just couldn't shift gears." That is, they couldn't dig deep and get some more power from their legs. This a reality of under-developed anaerobic capacity and power.
Often milers, however, have overdone their emphasis on anaerobic development (whether it was due to running too many fast reps and sessions or from neglect of aerobic capacity during the weeks when anaerobic reps were being emphasized)so they end up being unable to "hold pace" in their mile race. They "die," in other words. They can go out quickly the first 400-600m, but they slow considerably afterward. *How badly one has messed up the ratio of aerobic to anaerobic development is shown where and when an athlete "dies" in his or her 1-mile race.
Ask the questions: Did they slow after 600m? Did they slow on the third lap and couldn't get anything going until the last 200m? Did they die at 1200m or just afterward?
If a miler dies in the third and or fourth lap of a mile race and they have been doing "anaerobic" reps in training for a few sessions, then it is the aerobic capacity that is either under-developed or wasted away from neglect.
Now, if someone WHO HAS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SLOW TWITCH MUSCLE FIBERS will need to know right up front that they won't be running many anaerobic reps or many sessions fast if their goal is the one-mile race, even though the event requires close to 20-25% anaerobic contribution, on average. It would be a big-time mistake for a "slow twitcher" to do plenty of anaerobic reps an sessions, period, regardless of the event. He or she would fall apart when doing many anaerobic reps!
The miler type who has plenty of fast twitch fibers will be mistaken, similarly, if they do plenty of anaerobic reps as they prepare for a marathon. The event duration is so long that overdeveloping anaerobic capacity is the factor of greater consideration and takes precedence over personal muscle fiber makeup.
So, there is no pat answer. It depends upon the person and the event they are participating on as to how much emphasis should be placed on anaerobic development. This is where the art of coaching comes in, whether self-coaching or from another person.
Disclosure:
I sometimes greatly regret giving out information like this. Why? This stuff ends up being put on some other websites from those making money off coaching. Yes, I do make a small amout of money from coaching, too, but it is my material, inspiring people to hire me!
Perhaps this makes me seem like an unfriendly person for saying the obvious. But, I feel a need to say that others are fakes in how the present themselves as originators of material and methods. It bugs the hell out of me, to be perfectly frank. (I can imagine how ticked off Arthur Lydiard would be at times when others would use his training methods and claim they were the ones responsible for success of runners. Also, I can see how Mr. Lydiard would be ticked off when people would claim they are using Arthur's training method when in fact they were bastardizing it in both content and method).
Never the less, I hope my explanation does some good. Hopefully it clarifies a few things for you and gives you some direction. Remember, there are guidelines which work for most of the people, most of the time, but YOU ARE UNIQUe and require adjustments related to your personal constitution and race goals. If you can't figure out those things for yourself and implement them, then get a coach to observe you and be your objective guide. Tinman
Tinman 2-3% anaerobic? what is that supposed to mean? I presume you mean going slightly too far past the fat burning limit which is sometimes refered to as the Aerobic threshold?
But I have no time for the words aerobic and anaerobic, they just confuse people. We need some new terminology to tie in what both modern researchers and inspired coaches agree upon.
In a 1977 Runner's World, Arthur answered a question from someone who'd had back surgery and gave the guy a schedule.
Here it is:
First 8 weeks:
M- 30-45 min aerobic run
Tu 45-60 min aerobic run (henceforth all runs will be "aerobic run" unless otherwise noted)
W- 30-45 min
Th 45-60
F rest or 30 min
Sa. 30-45 min
Su. 60-90 min
Next 6 weeks:
M- 6x200 meters relaxed striding
Tu 45-60 min
W. 5,000 meter time trial
Th 45-60 min
Fr. rest or 30 min
Sa. 5,000 meter time trial
Su. 60-90 min
Subsequent 6 weeks:
Mo. 8x200 meters fast relaxed running
Tu. 45-60 min
W. 5,000 meter time trial
Th. 30-45 minute easy fartlek running
Fr. Rest or 30 min
Sa. 10,000 meter time trial
Su. 60-90 minute aerobic
Next week:
M- 8x100 meter windsprints every 200 meters
Tu. 45 min.
W. 3,000 meter time trial
Th. 4x200 meters relaxed striding
F rest or 30 min.
Sa. 3,000 meter time trial
Su. 60 min.
Final week:
M. 6-8x100 meters fast relaxed striding
Tu. 1500 meter time trial
W. 45 minutes
Th. 30 min.
Fr. Rest or 30min.
Sa. race
Su. 60 min. aerobic
Whether you can get to sub 7:00 or not, I'll echo Nobby. Who knows? But you certainly won't get there if you don't try, and if you knew, wouldn't all the fun be gone?
I don't think that anyone who "respectfully" disagreed got anything kicked. But there have been people who get on here and just seem like they want to complain or who seem to want to do nothing but question Arthur's ideas without really contributing any of their own and some of us have gotten a bit short with them.
It's particularly irritating when someone creates multiple anonymous identities, essentially repeats the same questions or arguments in slightly different forms and still seems dissatisified.
Those of us who knew Arthur and have posted here have put a good bit of thought into some of our posts and I don't think any of us object to that sort of "respectful" disagreement, particularly if the disagreement is a bit thought out and shows some indication that the poster has actually considered what we've said. But someone who just says, essentially, "I think you're wrong" and not much more could do with a nice, respectful, kick somewhere or other.
jtupper wrote:
Not a response to anyone or anything in particular, just some comments. Maybe my education and experience as a researcher and an athlete and coach make me look at things a little differently than many coaches. When different people conduct research and come up with similar (maybe even identical) findings, then there should be joy in the fact that different approaches came up with the same result. Certainly this has happened in coaching distance runners over the years, and when one person uses a technique similar to what others have also used, that doesn't necessarily mean one was taking from the other. Of course in this day and age of instant communication it is more likely the case, but not so long ago people in different parts of the world didn't even know what the other folks were doing, yet they still may have come up with the same approach for development of runners. It's because of this thinking that I prefer to try to dwell more on principles of training and what intensities produce what results, than to say this is how much, how often and for how long such and such should be done. Coaching is a never-ending research project. Some things are pretty clear -- for example, you have to run if you want to optimize your running capabilities, but how much of each type and at what age is optimum is not so set in stone. To borrow from Pirates, I like to think of my recommendations more as guidelines than laws. And there are always exceptions -- if there weren't, scientists wouldn't have to say that they discovered something and that there is a 95% chance that if you do this, this will be the result. It is also very difficult to write something down that can apply equally to youngsters and to adults, as well as to beginners and experienced. Every time I read something that I have written, I see how it could be taken a little differently or how better to say it. Think of them more as guidelines. Be willing to try something different, but always have the athletes’ interest foremost in your mind – the sport is for the athletes, not for the media nor the fans, as we often are led to believe
Great post, Dr. Daniels, and exactly how I look at alot of what I've read over the years regarding the training of distance runners. Be it your text from "Running Formula" or my notes from hearing you speak at a clinic or the many books of Lydiard's that I have read, they're definitely guidelines, i.e. my example earlier of adjusting the pace or recovery or number of reps depending on how an athlete is responding before, during or after a workout. I just don't understand the mindset of "I've got to finish these reps because this is what I set out to do even though I'm falling furhter and further off the pace with each one." It might help with developing mental toughness but I think being inflexible and not being able to adjust workouts on the fly is detrimental to long term develoipment of the athlete. Just my opinion.
Dr. Exag. wrote:
I think before I registered the name 'Dr. Exag' Skuj posted as Dr. Exag.
Skuj = many psuedonyms, but not mine!
so Skuj is/was Dr. Exag. man, that guy takes everybody's handle.
Eamil me and I will alleviate some confusion
Tinman 2-3% anaerobic? what is that supposed to mean? I presume you mean going slightly too far past the fat burning limit which is sometimes refered to as the Aerobic threshold?
But I have no time for the words aerobic and anaerobic, they just confuse people. We need some new terminology to tie in what both modern researchers and inspired coaches agree upon.[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like aeorbic and anaerobic, just think of it in terms of fuel utlization. You have a limited supply of glycogen and glucose in your body available to run. At marathon pace you normally burn some fatty acids too, as fuel. There is a desirable balance between the two.
If you train improperly, using plenty of fast reps, your body learns to burn sugars, glycogen and glucose, faster. As a result, when you run a marathon race you burn your sugars too fast and you run out of power before you reach the finish line.
Once you have drained your sugars too low, your body says "Hey there, I got keep a little bit around to run my nervous system - which only uses sugars - so I'll slow you down, buddy, and make you use fats as a fuel source." ATP production from burning fats is lower in amount per unit time. Thus, power output drops and you slow way down in the last few miles of the marathon.
If you train wisely for the marahton, using limited numbers of faster reps, you won't teach your body to burn sugars fast and you won't "bonk." Simple as that! Tinman
'Email'