Update on 6 Month Lydiard Style Base Training for a 17 Year Old

Lydiard’s ideas can be just as potent and just as enjoyable with an eye towards pace. Nobby and I agree that pace and other variables can help steer someone in the right direction. Livingstone’s book was endorsed by many of the great Kiwi runners.

Lydiard’s advice to you was what you needed to hear but you’ve taken that advice and universalized it. You enjoyed running hard. Some like to run harder. Some like to run slower and still others much slower and it has nothing to do with how motivated you are. Go out and enjoy yourself leads to all types of interpretations because perceived effort is a brain function. The main idea behind Lydiard training is to do a lot of running at an intensity that will improve your ability to assimilate, transport, and utilize oxygen. There are specific intensities that will help you achieve that goal under an optimal balance. This kid is in 19:00 shape and is running 8:00-8:50 for his easy miles. He can build an effective aerobic base by touching on paces that are slightly faster than that.

Coach Renato Canova by the way works with percentages of race pace. He is not a strictly effort-based coach. In fact he is a very big proponent of specificity in training.

If you like being specific in training, you can do it and improve. If you prefer being more general in training, you can do it and improve. I did not enjoy running hard, don't know where you got the impression I did. I ran comfortably and over time got comfortable at faster paces. I kind of modeled it on what Ron Clarke did. I know people who were faster than I was who trained harder and I know people who were faster than I was who trained much slower. The real trick is to train in a way that lets you do enough of it for a long time.

When people would ask Lydiard about lifting weights he'd say, "I never saw anyone win a marathon running on their arms and I hope to God I never do." He wasn't a fan but some of his guys did lift weights. He was okay with doing it as long as you weren't taking time away from your running and using it to lift. But if you'd done the miles you were supposed to do and had time to lift he'd say to go ahead.

This ties in with your question about races or time trials as well. If you are working on building miles and doing base training the question about doing anything else is whether you can do those things without losing focus on your miles. By the way, congratulations on that result. The "Lydiard" response to it, at this point in your training, would be to ask if you shortened the miles you ran on the day before to taper for it or needed to have lowered miles, or a day off, after. If the answer to both of these is no, you did what his original guys were doing when they turned up for club races during their base phase. If the answer is that you did one of both of these things Arthur wouldn't necessarily tell you not to run anymore trials but to keep to your normal volume right now when you do them. Don't ease up on the miles hoping for a really good result from the trial. The time for that is in the future.

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

Just to clarify:

I can still lift weights and do an occasional time trial while in my base phase (around every 4 weeks, I want to track my progress but don't want to damage aerobic enzymes), correct? I know HRE said that Lydiard's athletes occasionally ran some races, but I just want to make sure that this isn't detrimental to a novice runner like myself.

Note:

I did a 5k time trial today and lowered my pr from around 19:30 to 19:00, even with horrible (first lap 76 seconds) pacing. This is on 8 weeks of a very slow milage build up. I can't wait to see what more miles will do!

Many thanks,

RunnerWithADevelopingAerobicBase

Congrats on the PR! Sounds like you're making good progress.

Started writing this before HRE posted his more detailed response, but I'll post it anyway: Lydiard himself wasn’t big on lifting weights, but if you feel like it works for you, I’d keep doing it. And I think you’re fine doing the occasional time trial, though I might suggest that you change up the distances and maybe the venues, too, so that instead of doing a 5k on the track every time, maybe you mix things up with 5k cross country, 5 miles on the road, a mile on the track, a hard trail run, etc. That will help to keep things fresh and fun and also give you some more information about where your relative strengths may lie at this point and what you may want to work on.

HRE wrote:

I know people who were faster than I was who trained harder and I know people who were faster than I was who trained much slower. The real trick is to train in a way that lets you do enough of it for a long time.

That doesn’t mean it was optimal training for you or them. The real trick is not running enough miles for a long time at a comfortable pace. The real trick is running as many miles as you can tolerate near your maximum steady-state, a term that Lydiard used over and over again.

As for lifting, running is always the priority. Hills and plyometrics are the most specific form of strength training. However, research shows that squats and deadlifts improve running economy. There’s more to lifting than big arms and bicep curls.

You can never know what optimal training is for yourself or for anyone else because you cannot know if you'd have done better or worse if you'd done something different. Consequently, you can always tell someone who did well with training you don't like that they'd have done even better if they'd trained "optimally,", i.e., like you think they should have done.

If you're going to run a lot of miles they mostly need to be in your comfort zone because even if you don't hurt yourself with a lot of running out of your comfort zone most of us will have a hard time getting ourselves to run enough if it involves a substantial bit of misery. Again, the comfort zone can be extended significantly. Arthur always put a lot of emphasis on enjoying your training. The first chapter of "Run to the Top" is titled, "Enjoyment: the First Step." It seems like there's something about the idea of training being enjoyable that you have a hard time with.

This makes a lot of sense.

When I was younger I would always go on out and back runs at 100%. I enjoy this. However, I think that the acidity from this type of training is detrimental and the risk of injury is too high. I now channel this effort to my core and leg workouts.

HRE wrote:

If you're going to run a lot of miles they mostly need to be in your comfort zone because even if you don't hurt yourself with a lot of running out of your comfort zone most of us will have a hard time getting ourselves to run enough if it involves a substantial bit of misery..

Optimal training does exist. Optimal training is based on exercise science and the combined knowledge of athletes and coaches in our sport. If someone did 10 x 400m hard every day you would certainly tell them that they would have run better had they trained differently. That’s an extreme example but optimal training exists on a spectrum.

It seems you have a hard time understanding that “enjoyable” is a relative term and that if a specific pace is not enjoyable you are still capable of pushing yourself to do lots of running at that pace. Motivation is more complex than you give it credit for.

You also gloss over the statement I’ve made to you several times (here and in other threads) that a direct relationship does not always exist between perceived effort and the physiological adaptations you want to create due to the ways that each person’s brain interprets discomfort. That is a scientific fact.

I have nothing against enjoyment. I can run easy and enjoy it. I can run at a moderate pace and enjoy it. I can run hard and enjoy it.

Lydiard taught us that you achieve best results when you run near your maximum steady state. Most people would call that a moderate pace. Some people might enjoy that pace, some might prefer to go slower or faster, but preference is besides the point.

Maximum steady state is achieved around 2 mmol of blood lactate. It’s roughly 70-80% of your velocity at V02 Max. It’s not what this kid was doing before by doing his out and back runs at what he calls 100% but it’s not necessarily easy or comfortable running. For some runners hitting that intensity may require getting outside of their comfort zone and that’s okay.

Easy running or jogging is not going to give your aerobic system the stimulus it needs to develop to its maximum capacity. Keeping your heart rate very low is a good idea for beginners (and thus the title of the first chapter) but even Coach Renato Canova says that anything slower than 80% of marathon pace is a recovery run. Staying in your comfort zone is not Lydiard or Canova unless your comfort zone falls roughly within the 70-80% of vV02 window.

Lydiard found that you could build up to 100mpw or about 10 hours of running per week near this steady-state. You can run more than that but it should be easy running or jogging.

Generally I am running at a pace where:

- I don't build up lactate (except going up hills, which I should probably start doing at a slower pace)

- I can talk, but not a full conversation

Sometimes I do build up lactate when I am going uphill (I live in a very hilly area), but I am working on finding a pace where this doesn't happen.

Sorry for the triple post, but is it a problem if I build up lactate running uphill? I am not necessarily breathing hard, and it is similar to doing squats or lunges, which most of you agree isn't a problem. Would this act as strength training?

No, optimal training cannot be shown to exist no matter how much so called science you want to reference. You obviously can identify bad training but trying to figure out whether 7:00 or 8:00 pace is optimal for a 15 mile run is not possible because even for the same person the effort differs from day to day. Yes, Lydiard recommended running at your best aerobic speed but never gave any sort of specific definition of what that is beyond being pleasantly tired and was always very clear that you can get just as fit by running slower than that but doing so will take more time.

Running is a really simple sport. Many people can't seem to believe how simple it is and feel compelled to complicate it. (There'actually are psychological studies showing that people prefer complex explanations to simple ones and will actually switch from believing correct simple explanations to believing incorrect complicated ones.) In the posts after your one here the OP is wondering if it's okay to run hills because he might generate lactate. Running hills is nearly always good regardless of what you do or don't generate and you'd need a blood test to know for sure how much lactate you're generating.

We can go round about this forever. Neither of us is going to convince the other so it's pointless and while I always get into these things thinking that for once I'm going to keep on until the other guy quits and I get the last word, I always lose interest and quit responding. At that point I usually stop opening the thread but I keep checking this one to see of the OP asked me anything. I'll keep doing that but I'm probably not going to read any more of your posts unless they're really short because we're just taking up space.

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

Sorry for the triple post, but is it a problem if I build up lactate running uphill? I am not necessarily breathing hard, and it is similar to doing squats or lunges, which most of you agree isn't a problem. Would this act as strength training?

If you aren't breathing hard there's no problem. Hills are "speed work in disguise," I think that was a Frank Shorter quote and do build strength. Lydiard always recommended running hills instead of lifting weights. Living in a hilly area can be a big advantage. Make use of the hills and don't worry about what's going on with your blood.

For the OP: Lydiard was a big fan of hills. I'm a big fan of hills. If you're running on the roads, the downhills can beat you up a bit, so be judicious.

One thing you should be aware of is that whether you "go anaerobic" or not is not the only factor that determines whether your training is sustainable. In fact, assuming that you're not going out and cranking hard intervals, the main thing you need to steer clear of is injury, not acidosis. Generally speaking, your cardiovascular system is going to respond to training faster than your musculoskeletal system, so you need to make sure you give your legs time to adapt. This is another strong argument for taking your time and keeping things mostly easy at first.

Along with this, I would recommend that if you can, you get off the roads for at least part of your training. (Lydiard himself expressed somewhat mixed views on this subject in his books, but I've seen video of him running on trails, and he had approving things to say about the training of Jack Foster, who did most of his running offroad. Also, running on trails is fun.)

I will agree with parkerjohn that from a running perspective, whatever lifting you do should be supplemental to your running. So, if you're taking the intensity out of your running and putting it into your lifting and core workouts, I'm not sure that's what I would recommend.

HRE wrote:

You obviously can identify bad training but trying to figure out whether 7:00 or 8:00 pace is optimal for a 15 mile run is not possible because even for the same person the effort differs from day to day.

Nonsense. 7:00 and 8:00 pace are worlds apart. Having a goal pace does not mean you don’t vary your pace day to day. The goal for a 15 mile run might be 7:00 pace but you might go slower based on how you feel and the conditions you’re met with. Instead of villainizing pace it’s possible and more fair-minded to see it as a helpful guide. It strikes me that your anti-science attitude (apart from being a handicap to future learning) is founded on fear rather than any substantive basis.

You will not reach your potential by jogging even if you jog 150 mpw for the next 10 years. I would never recommend that path unless the goal is to excel at the ultramarathon distances.

I have not overcomplicated anything. In fact, it only took me a few posts to explain how you can select training paces within a Lydiard framework. Subjectivity actually creates more complexity and that’s what you’re doing when you tell someone to run until they are pleasantly tired. Breathing hard is another good one. While we’re at it why don’t we teach someone to identify the color red by describing it.

parkerjohn wrote:

Lydiard taught us that you achieve best results when you run near your maximum steady state. Most people would call that a moderate pace. Some people might enjoy that pace, some might prefer to go slower or faster, but preference is besides the point.

Maximum steady state is achieved around 2 mmol of blood lactate. It’s roughly 70-80% of your velocity at V02 Max. It’s not what this kid was doing before by doing his out and back runs at what he calls 100% but it’s not necessarily easy or comfortable running. For some runners hitting that intensity may require getting outside of their comfort zone and that’s okay.

Roughly 70-80% of velocity at VO2Max is a wide range of speeds, so a "moderate" pace? Yet studies of how elite runners train show on average they do little running at moderate effort, 80% is easy effort (which would be "fast" for the OP) and 20% is hard effort. Not saying the OP should train this way, rather as HRE has said, the OP should enjoy their running and train in such a way that they can enjoy it day after day, week after week and year after year.

Lydiard suggested that you could identify the best pace for your runs by doing an "out and back" test. Find a course where you can run out for half the desired length of the run and where the turnaround point is at about the same elevation as the start, i.e, where you aren't running predominantly up or down hill for half the run. Don't look at a watch in the second half until you're back. If you got back in about the same time you went out you had found a good pace. If you needed more time to get back than it took to go out you ran too fast at the start. If you get back in a lot less time than you needed going out the first half was too slow.

PS, When he would tell you that the first half was too slow he meant that an ideal pace would be the one where you run both halves in about the same time. Again, he did believe you could get as fit running slowly as by running faster but it would take longer.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Roughly 70-80% of velocity at VO2Max is a wide range of speeds, so a "moderate" pace? Yet studies of how elite runners train show on average they do little running at moderate effort, 80% is easy effort (which would be "fast" for the OP) and 20% is hard effort. Not saying the OP should train this way, rather as HRE has said, the OP should enjoy their running and train in such a way that they can enjoy it day after day, week after week and year after year.

You are confusing modern day training with Lydiard training which is the subject of this thread. It's true that modern day elites follow a more polarized (80/20) model and that idea has trickled down to the masses. Lydiard training (at least during the base phase) takes the middle ground which is part of what makes it so interesting. With Lydiard training you don't need to run easy 80% of the time because nearly all the work is being done at moderate intensities. The whole point behind 80/20 is to help you recover from the 20% of hard running. 70-80% of vV02 max is not hard or easy. It's high-end aerobic work that you can do on a daily basis if you build up slowly.