The paces were never right for me as someone who was more of a speed guy.
If I based things on 5k race pace then E pace felt too fast and R pace felt too slow. I think there was also no M pace in the 800, 1500, or 5k plans if I'm remembering correctly but I actually benefitted a lot once I started working out at that pace, it helped my endurance start to catch up to my speed.
And 2 days of T and M pace work using the lactat meter to be more precise on the exact pace.
For me it is just an advanced version, matching the T volumen to the high milage run ?
The main diffrence with Hudson/Bakken is no I pace style workouts. So is vo2 max training dead ?
No, VO2 Max training isn't dead within the Norwegian system. It's still used, but only focused on for shorter periods, particularly when sharpening up for the shorter distance races. And those weekly hill repeats with a relatively short (jog down) rest, are more of a VO2 max workout than an R session.
The rest is like 70- 90s. That is a long rest period. It doesn't really map to either an I or R workout. It is a bit harder than R but easier than I.
No, VO2 Max training isn't dead within the Norwegian system. It's still used, but only focused on for shorter periods, particularly when sharpening up for the shorter distance races. And those weekly hill repeats with a relatively short (jog down) rest, are more of a VO2 max workout than an R session.
The rest is like 70- 90s. That is a long rest period. It doesn't really map to either an I or R workout. It is a bit harder than R but easier than I.
Arguably more of an R workout. The adaptation sought for R workouts are efficiency. Daniels also states hill workouts are a good substitute. Maybe if they were going longer than a 200m hill we could look at V02 max adaptations, but that isn't the case.
My question is - has reverse periodization become the standard? For example doing speed work early in a marathon block and more MP later.
It is my understanding that the adaptations from faster intervals are lost quickly. I also understand specificity is important, just not really convinced either way.
I was told that Daniel's style (running formula 3rd edition) is outdated ?
If that is true what is outdated in his book ? What are more "modern" approaches ?
Going back about 25 years I was at a clinic with Daniels, very few high school kids and only two coaches. I was able to talk to him after.
I told him what I did for training my high school kids and he said it was basically a simplified version of what his program is.
Having said that, I think Daniels is good for high school and can be simplified for the average recreational runner.
Basically what I did was:
summer base training- just run miles dependent on age and ability.
The season starts and we did hard/ easy days. The hard days were basically tempo runs with recovery runs and then one long run on Saturday. Sunday was optional day off or just a few easy miles.
Then hills
then longer track work that decreased in repetition length as we got closer to the championship races. they would start with 800's and work down to 400's.
Keep in mind that we would have two races during the hill phase.
I didn't use V dot or anything complicated. I was lucky enough to have records of kids running the same courses from 1960 to the present. I used those times as target times for the "tempo" runs and then race times for target times for the track repeats.
I don't think something so simple would work for a top level college or pro. But for a high school kid or the average recreational runner it's fine.
My question is - has reverse periodization become the standard? For example doing speed work early in a marathon block and more MP later.
It is my understanding that the adaptations from faster intervals are lost quickly. I also understand specificity is important, just not really convinced either way.
In short, yes, the best in the world are following this general pattern. You must first, early on, replace what was neglected in the buildup to your last marathon.No time right now to elaborate but I will try to come back to explain.
If Daniels is a good solid training plan, then how can it date in our lifetime? Arthur Lydiard principles are just as relevant today as they were in the 1950s.
This is because human physiology has not changed in 75 years nor has it changed in thousands of years.
You may get a specific situation where a coach will work with a specific athlete and they hit it out of the park.
You may get a coach and athlete who together and it doesn’t work. Good and bad training can look the same on paper.
Learn the basics of physiology as it pertains to endurance training and you won’t need to ask that question.
Yes physiology has not changed, but lifestyle has.
Young men in 50's New Zealand were not lacking general strength. They needed aerobic development. Now obviously running is an endurance sport and everyone always needs aerobic development, but if you've been pounding out miles for a decade plus the benefits from more miles decrease.
Daniels fills the biggest gaps of the modern American athlete, and gives a basic understanding of how to train. That's good enough for most people. If you've been training for a long time or truly want to optimize your training around your background you'll need something else.
Generally speaking, Daniels plan is too heavily periodized. He tends to go all in on one energy system and neglect the rest, then switch every 4-6 weeks. In my experience these transition points are the highest risk of injury because every 6 weeks you're doing something you're not used to doing and haven't done in quite a while. There's a very high risk of overdoing it. More current training plans would still choose an energy system to focus on for a block of training, but try to maintain some work in the other systems throughout the entire year so nothing is truly left behind or untouched for a prolonged period of time.
Threshold has been outdated since 1985. Arbitrary math, mostly built from arbitrary mishmash of protocols, ignoring non-steady state kinetics and most importantly weak basis to view lactate as a bad guy. The very best regression equations still have standard errors of 10-12m/min. And whatever parameters you may select truth is high cross correlations making magic training paces unlikely.For example, HS kid runs 4mi 6:12 instead of 6:20, world not coming to an end.
What's really happened since then with training is a phase out of slow distance, mega-mileage and ludicrously hard interval sessions. Faster people dominating distance running, by fast I mean those who can manage 11s 100m with a few steps running start and competitive track times down to 1000-200m Fast people enjoy faster running and respond to faster work overall, continuous or intermittent work can get results if load and work/rest is managed properly, but the whip cracking is out.
Daniels has a lot of shortcomings but the basic flaws are straightforward: one size fits all jogging or any type paces ignores individual difference, VO2peak reps for most runners not 3000-5000 pace but rather faster, again no adjusting for individual differences. Same problem with the performance tables. The concept is good but the data had limited marks < 3' duration and predicting 80 or 100km from 1500 is a worthwhile attempt but also highlights the lack of individualization in the approach. I'm sure he's glad he wrote the books but I'm also certain he would enjoy discussing the evolution of the science and coaching since.
No wonder he’s never created a good runner! And you all still follow his training? Does anyone but this ‘Smoove’ chap actually like his training? Long run rules? Choosing random paces that have nothing to...
Problem is, the first editions are good basic training knowledge but the latest editions has been trying to churn out more from the same stuff which does not work.
It needs to be simplyfied much more. His training schedules are way too rigid.
He does not have the double threshold i
Which is household stuff for the successful n handsome Swedish n Norwegian runners.
Problem is, the first editions are good basic training knowledge but the latest editions has been trying to churn out more from the same stuff which does not work.
It needs to be simplyfied much more. His training schedules are way too rigid.
He does not have the double threshold i
Which is household stuff for the successful n handsome Swedish n Norwegian runners.
Any schedule in a book is rigid. There is art to customizing it to fit your needs.
Double thresholds are pretty overrated. The subset of people that can justify doubles and the like aren't enough to do a printing run.
Things have definitely advanced but the thing is the difference between systems get smaller and smaller as time progress. Lydiard and anything before or after is huge. Have some dude go from 30mpw of hard intervals to 90mpw and you might be talking 60s over a 5k. Daniels versus Lydiard? Much smaller. Daniels versus your favorite? Even smaller.
FWIW one of my high school running buddies went to SUNY Cortland and was coached by Daniels. My high school PRs were 4:36 1600 / 10:12 32:00 / 16:24 5000. My buddy was slower than me. JD got him close to 30 flat for 10K. By no means elite, but sure not bad for somebody I consistently beat back in high school. Now I’m a 42-year-old fat guy who jogs a few 8 minute miles every other day, and my high school buddy is a national class masters athlete. JD done good with that one.
Google is your friend. Try searching The Five Principles of Arthur Lydiard Training.
There are some articles that are inaccurate so, to be sure this is solid gold, I am telling you it was vetted and approved and is often shared by the Arthur Lydiard Foundation.
Problem is, the first editions are good basic training knowledge but the latest editions has been trying to churn out more from the same stuff which does not work.
It needs to be simplyfied much more. His training schedules are way too rigid.
He does not have the double threshold i
Which is household stuff for the successful n handsome Swedish n Norwegian runners.
Any schedule in a book is rigid. There is art to customizing it to fit your needs.
Double thresholds are pretty overrated. The subset of people that can justify doubles and the like aren't enough to do a printing run.
Things have definitely advanced but the thing is the difference between systems get smaller and smaller as time progress. Lydiard and anything before or after is huge. Have some dude go from 30mpw of hard intervals to 90mpw and you might be talking 60s over a 5k. Daniels versus Lydiard? Much smaller. Daniels versus your favorite? Even smaller.
So we're back to Lydiard v Daniels on this page of this here letsrun thread are we?
They are both great philosophers, both had a grasp of science, both wrong about some of the fundamentals.
For example, Daniels ignores the neuroscience, like most famous "exercise physiologists" do. And Lydiard got aerobic capacity and aerobic endurance muddled up.
A simple graph would demonstrate the difference.
Any of you statisticians care to plot that graph for us?