Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

Definitly Coe-Martinism. That's the basic template of training I follow now, and it is working very well for me. I really don't like the idea of completely changing your training come track season, so that's why the Coe system suits me.

Thank you for your question. I've been using Coe-Martin with my athletes for several years with wonderful results. It is a well thought out plan that can be easily applied. I highly recommend it. I hope this helps you. Good luck with your training.

This is inspired by the great thread on Lydiard-Daniels. It became a mostly Lydiard thread. Perhaps many here are familiar with Coe-Martin. It could be a worthy discussion comparing the two ideas.

I've tried versions of each in different years, and as an 800/1500 runner, my best easons have been w/the Coe template (although I really dislike the book). It probably helps that I have a huge lifetime base.

What is the Coe-Martin program? Why is it not very publicized?

Lydiard

?.?.? wrote:

What is the Coe-Martin program? Why is it not very publicized?

Probably better described as MultiPace Training (MPT). The link has a good overview:

Lydiard too emphaisis doing some multi-pace training all year it's just he really emphasis one aspect in each phase of his training. IMHO the 2 prgrams really aren't that different when you break them down to their basics.

Woooohoooo! Great idea for a thread.

I think they are very different. At the core is multipacing in distinct phases vs multipacing most of the time. This is not to say that Coe-Martin is the same week in week out. The Coe-Martinites do not believe in distinct phases that change very drastically from previous phases. They make a case for multipacing year round as a developmental model for all systems.

By the time they reach their early 30s, most elite runners—at least in theory—are immune to broad-based training revelations. But when Keith Dowling was preparing to train for the 2002 Boston Marathon, poring over the logs of some other top runners led him to something of an epiphany.

Dowling, after a solid showing at the Parkersburg Half Marathon the previous August (1:03:59), had locked into a traditional training program for the New York City Marathon in November. In the final six weeks before the race the program had him doing threshold work to the virtual exclusion of other types of hard workouts. In the Big Apple, Dowling struggled to a 2:19:09.

"Before Parkersburg, I’d done training that included repetitions, threshold, no VO2 workouts but some short races like 8Ks and 5Ks," says Dowling. "It was only when I moved into the next phase of primarily threshold training that I got stale."

Dowling’s sub-par New York effort led him to look at his own training from 1996, 2000 Olympic marathoner Rod DeHaven’s training, and "pretty much anyone’s training that I could find," he says. "I noticed most elite long-distance runners rarely followed a strictly periodized program like Lydiard. That’s when I realized that a mixture worked better. In fact, the earlier phase before Parkersburg seemed to work better because it included a little bit of everything."

Dowling’s training for Boston during the winter and spring was characterized by the same potpourri of workouts he’d seen work for himself and others. He eschewed strict phases and took care to frequently touch upon all manner of faster paces during his preparation, running anywhere from 60 to 140 miles a week and incorporating intervals of 400m to 3,000m as well as "cut-down" or "progression" runs that took him from around 6:30 pace to marathon pace over the course of a long run. Dowling wound up the top American at Boston with a personal-best time of 2:13:28.

Variety Under Any Name

The type of training Dowling adopted goes by a variety of names: Multi-tier training, complex training, or, perhaps most commonly, multi-pace training (MPT). Far from a new "invention," it was first codified by British coach Frank Horwill in 1970 and applied with aplomb across the pond to top middle-distance runners. Peter Coe, a champion of Horwill’s "five-pace training," used the system to coach his son Sebastian to four Olympic medals and 12 world records in the 800m to mile range, one of which, the 1,000m (2:12.18), has stood for 22 years. Horwill based his original plan on the "four-second rule"—the observation that top runners typically slowed down by four seconds per 400-meter lap when moving from a given race distance to twice that distance, and believed that runners should train not only at the pace of their chosen distance, but at the two "above" and the two "below" it as well, with due emphasis given to the athlete’s own race pace.

Hence, a 3,000m specialist capable of 8:45 (70 seconds per 400m) would train at 62, 66, 70, 74 and 78 seconds per lap during interval training. (Though the term did not then exist, the latter pace probably corresponds quite well with such a runner’s anaerobic threshold or tempo pace.) Rest jogs also followed a mathematically precise scheme: twice the repetition distance when training at 400m pace, equal to the repetition distance at 800m pace, half at mile pace, and so on.

Not surprisingly, advocates of this "non-traditional" system, once attuned to its efficacy, adapted it to the longer distances. It is here, in the 5K and above, where training is perhaps most commonly marked by strict phases that often emphasize training at one pace during harder workouts in a given period to the exclusion of all others.

Dowling cites Australian great Rob de Castella (2:07:51 at Boston in 1986, then a course record) as a marathon specialist who was a classic exemplar of MPT and eschewed the traditional periodization. "I think the Aussie way is pretty cool because the athletes learn the system early on in their careers and then fine tune it for the marathon later with few changes," he says. "That philosophy of complex training is interesting because it’s designed to be repeated over many years. You’ll notice that Deek, [Shawn] Creighton and [Steve] Moneghetti all lasted well into their 30s."

Although multi-pace training now encompasses methods outside the strict five-pace system, one implication of using a Horwillian approach for road distances is that as an athlete’s specialty creeps up in distance, he or she winds up doing an increasing fraction of his or her "quality" work at or near threshold. In any case, the key lies in not neglecting speedwork at any one time as well as in ensuring the paces of the workouts are appropriately varied.

Lydiardian Roots

Runners and coaches who defend the notion of distinct training phases, each with a special emphasis on a certain type of speed and some lacking formal speedwork altogether, frequently make mention of Arthur Lydiard, the New Zealand great who produced Olympic medallists and world record holders from 880 yards through the marathon. Lydiard is regarded as an advocate of a "peaking" approach in which a tremendous aerobic base is a prerequisite for all programs and a distinct sharpening period precedes a goal race or a series of goal competitions.

But many runners and coaches lack a complete understanding of Lydiard’s philosophy. While Lydiard stresses the need to build aerobic endurance through high mileage before endeavoring in other forms of training (not, as many say, through long slow distance but through "high-end" aerobic running, some of it likely classifiable as threshold training), he also notes the importance of anaerobic training and advocates a modicum of speedwork of various kinds in each training phase. These range from short, "alactic" 50-meter sprints to repetitions of over 200 meters designed to incur lactic-acid build-up. His methods predated the invention of the term "multi-tier training," but Lydiard’s famed "one-quarter effort," "half-effort," and "three-quarters effort" workouts employ, in practice, a juggling of speeds virtually identical to that favored by contemporary MPT advocates.

Greg McMillan, a physiologist, runner and online coach (www.mcmillanrunning.com), says, "Ironically enough, Lydiard is where I first encountered multi-pace training. When I started coaching, I found that not only could I create programs that included the usual phases of training, but I could offer athletes a variety of workouts within each energy system that involved training at a variety of paces." McMillan found that his athletes not only became better conditioned and performed better, but stayed highly motivated owing to the variety of their routines. And as he points out, MPT is not incompatible with the use of training phases: "I think the phase system creates the structure of the training cycle and the multi-pace system fits within it to provide the nuts and bolts of the workouts. Some paces will be emphasized more extensively in one phase than in others, but no pace is ever excluded."

The Base

Still, there are key differences between a Lydiard marathon program and an MPT-based one. Says Dowling, "My fear of Lydiard was his priority of speed before the big races rather than protection of aerobic conditioning that I feel is important for 10K on up to the marathon."

Some runners, wed to their notions of Lydiardian ideals, may initially be concerned that such a scheme is incompatible with base-building. However, since the focus of an MPT-style program for distance runners is overwhelmingly aerobic, such concerns are—no pun intended—baseless. "[Even before starting MPT] I had never done just base," says Dowling. "I hope that I’ve accumulated aerobic base from years of repeating the same cycles of training. When I moved to the marathon, I did notice that my track season would always be better, so Lydiard was on the right track. The difference is marathon training is still more than just getting in base work. It’s high-end aerobic training. Plus there’s the goal of the actual 26.2-mile race at the end to keep you motivated. After you’ve done a successful build-up, you race, recover, and you continue building."

Adds McMillan, "In the way I use it, MPT plays a role in base-building but differently than in the other phases of training. In the initial 8-12 weeks of base-building, I’ve found the best results when the runner focuses on just two paces—the regular aerobic-building/conversational pace and very fast, short (less than 30 seconds in duration) repeats." In the last four weeks of base-building, he’ll include other paces that challenge the spectrum of energy systems. McMillan has found that this scheme wards off staleness, helps prevent injuries, and eases the transition into more intense phases of training.

Newer runners, of course, should simply become familiar with the act of running as locomotion and establish an idea of a manageable workload before undertaking a specific MPT (or any, for that matter) training plan involving directed speed workouts.

Versatile and Comprehensive

Many popular "American" programs aimed at the long-distance-running masses smack of MPT. For example, two-time Olympic marathoner Pete Pfitzinger’s programs in his book Advanced Marathoning include a careful blend of VO2 Max, threshold, and ultra-short-distance (i.e., strides) workouts as well as build-up races at a variety of distances; these efforts are rotated regularly, with no one type given priority during any stretch of the training build-up.

McMillan hastens to point out that different coaches can put MPT concepts to use in different ways, yet still enjoy success. "I find that there’s a pace range for each energy system," he says. "If, for example, you want to train your lactate-threshold system, you need to determine a minimum pace and a maximum pace; training between these extremes will improve that system." McMillan can thus prescribe a variety of different paces just for lactate-threshold workouts and achieve the desired results; these, from fastest to slowest, are cruise intervals, tempo intervals, tempo runs, and steady state runs.

The same principle applies to each energy system (McMillan terms these endurance, lactate-threshold or stamina, speed, and sprint). So across a training cycle, McMillan can offer his athletes a host of varied workouts and can design them with particular athletes’ likes and needs in mind. Within a given week, he’ll add paces for several energy systems, again using a variety of workouts.

Joe Rubio, a two-time Olympic Marathon Trials participant and a California-based coach of the Reebok Aggies and others, lists five essential elements of training: intervals in the range of 400m to 1600m, progressive pace "tempo" runs, a weekly long run, race-specific speedwork, and a consistent recovery day each week. Moreover, he says, these elements are the cornerstones of training programs for milers, marathoners and everyone in between, a concept he says many athletes have a hard time accepting. "Get these (five elements) right and rest assured you are training as the Olympians do," says Rubio. "But miss even one of them and you’re missing half the puzzle."

Looking at Rubio’s "quintet" more generally, it’s easy to see the distinct benefit of each element in any distance runner’s program. The first is designed to bolster VO2 Max, the second to boost lactate tolerance, the third to improve fuel utilization and overall endurance, the fourth to better running economy, and the fifth to ensure runners don’t succumb to overtraining. Regardless of the specifics, a program that regularly cycles through these elements and doesn’t neglect any of them is considered by many to be a near-guarantee of success. See the sidebar for a sample program.

Variety has been described as the spice of life, but simple analysis reveals that it might just be the perfect flavoring for your training and racing recipe too.

2 week cycle

Sun Long run

Mon Easy run

Tue Easy Run

Wed short repeats of 200-400

Thu Medium Long run

Fri Easy Run

Sat Race or progressive Tempo Run

Sun Long Run

Mon Easy Run

Tue Easy Run

Wed Short hill repeats 200-400

Thu Medium Long Run

Fri Easy Run

Sat Race or Long Repeats of 1k-2k

Lyd

had great coaching success with the Dr Dave Martin / Peter Coe program, the periodized approach to training...the book is a bit weighty for most lay people but the principles (originally conceived by Tudor Bompa) are spot on!

MF

It took me quite a few years to change to year round multipace training. Influenced a lot by Joe Rubio's threads, I pretty much follow training he outlined on Letsrun and run-insight posts. I use it mostly for 10Ks to Halfs.

I have greatly reduced injuries that plauged me, even when trying to transition into a new phase (I used Daniels as a guide then). It's also easier psychologically to gradually increase intensities etc.

Lydiard may have advised a mix, but as a self-coached runner I find Rubio's (with references to Coe/Martin's book) easier to follow and note my improvements.

Lydiard too! Just started reading Coe/Martin book, we will see...

I've actually switched things up the last few seasons w/ good results. Have gone to a 8-10 week base phase (6 month season) with higher weekly miles, mid week long run in the hills at a strong effort, a tempo run on the weekend and short intervals or hill reps (200-300m gradual) mid week as the 2 primary workouts during the "base" phase. We transition into 6-8 weeks of a multi paced schedule around the primary race distance, and the final few weeks we go event specific work. Seems to be working well particularly the middle aged or inexperienced people who are trying to reach new weekly mileage heights. They tend to get hurt incorporating things like mile reps and 800's on top of the trying to reach new weekly mileage goals. It's just too much for them at that point of the season. 200-400 intervals instead of 800-1600 at the same pace (ie 400's at 72 vs mile reps at 4:48) get us what we want at that point of the season. For the better guys it's worked too, a runner I advise ran 29:34 in 2004, and improved to 28:52 in 2005 using this type of program.

So when we are focusing on weekly mileage, we drop the 800-1600 type 3k-10k intervals mostly because the athlete run them way too hard for that time of the season. We start doing the 800-1600 interval type of stuff after we drop the weekly miles a bit in the multi-paced portion of the schedule to adjust for the increased intensity.

Like I said previously, the result have been positive, particulary for the less elite among the group.

Joe

Skuj wrote:

The Coe-Martinites do not believe in distinct phases that change very drastically from previous phases.

Thank you for your reply. You are wrong. I would suggest you (re)read 'Better Training For Distance Runners' for a better understanding of the Coe/Martin training philosophy. I hope this helps you. Good luck with your training.

I've put the Lydiard book on say on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4615126013&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

The Professor wrote:

Skuj wrote:

The Coe-Martinites do not believe in distinct phases that change very drastically from previous phases.

Thank you for your reply. You are wrong. I would suggest you (re)read 'Better Training For Distance Runners' for a better understanding of the Coe/Martin training philosophy. I hope this helps you. Good luck with your training.

I KNOW THAT FOOKING BOOK LIKE THE BACK OF MY HAND!!!

The Coe-Martin approach is like a gradually shifting amoeba. Multipace training is done year round. Yes, there are volume peaks and general intensity peaks, and emphasis shifts very gradually. But it is not distinct phases like Lydiard. The Coe-Martinites list various mesocycles, but they exist only as examples of emphasis. The amoeba has very definitely moved about.