Paavo Distance Training

Paavo is a canned program that is poor for development of athletes. Do a search on this board and you will find thread after thread of reasons why you should avoid a Paavo coach.

wicked stoked wrote:

Paavo is a canned program that is poor for development of athletes. Do a search on this board and you will find thread after thread of reasons why you should avoid a Paavo coach.

This is true! Better to read and understand Lydiard and Daniels. There are actually real books written on their training.

Two sides to every story....

My high school progression under PAAVO:

Freshman year:

1600m: 5:35 during first XC practice, 4:52 first track race, 4:37 last track race; XC: 20:06 first race, 18:37 last race

Sophomore year:

Track: 4:27/9:55

XC: 17:35

Junior year:

Track: 4:34/9:36

XC: 16:16

Senior year:

Track: 4:27/9:32-allstate

XC: 15:53-allstate

There have been a few state champions (team and individual) who have used the system in single class Indiana. It does work....sometimes..;)

Alan

I've been waiting for this debate to resurface. I knew of two Paavo runners from last year. I checked to see them fail this year. They helped Arkansas to a great season as Freshman this fall. Maybe it isn't so bad after all.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Two sides to every story....

My high school progression under PAAVO:

Freshman year:

1600m: 5:35 during first XC practice, 4:52 first track race, 4:37 last track race; XC: 20:06 first race, 18:37 last race

Sophomore year:

Track: 4:27/9:55

XC: 17:35

Junior year:

Track: 4:34/9:36

XC: 16:16

Senior year:

Track: 4:27/9:32-allstate

XC: 15:53-allstate

There have been a few state champions (team and individual) who have used the system in single class Indiana. It does work....sometimes..;)

Alan

runningart, is there some physiological reasoning why paavo doesnt steadily increase mile times, compared to 5k and 3200??

it could be because there isnt enough anaerobic training in the paavo program??

the430miler, you fail.

There isn't a multitude of endurance work -compared to his mile times, the 5K times show relatively poor endurance.

Not to diminish the accomplishment, the times are fine, you WERE allstate, but from a 4:27 1600 you'd be expecting more like a 15:20-30 5K.

Given not running much before high school XC, the rapid progression in mile times during his freshman year just shows potential and carrying the prerequisite speed. Getting out and running slightly more than usual at all, without getting injured, is going to boost your times.

He didn't improve much after that. Continuing to run simply added on to a mediocre aerobic fitness afterwards, which never caught up to his mile times. You can't just blame that on "having more fast twitch fibers".

Those results just prove the inadequacy of the system. I've seen people where I live following the program, start to run, enjoy results as any running should provide, and level off and blame it on other things.

Then they go to college, find another program, and suddenly find themselves improving again.

there have been several paavo runners in michigan and indiana and ohio to run under 4:15 in the mile in the last decade

There were also several folks who achieved the same performances or better on any number of other training programs.

Speaking from runningart's example, he did not achieve continued improvement. His junior year was worse than his sophomore year. If we assume the year to be a result of other unmentioned circumstances, the next year merely equaled his sophomore year in the 1600. Endurance remained mediocre at best.

I'm not entirely familiar with those achieving success under the system, but I know many more people, in the past decade, that have run well under 4:15. Countless.

It could also be argued that results would be even better if the Paavo program was more widespread, at least for some people it could work for. However, given the example provided, as well as others in the area I've seen or coached personally, it's never worked. Once. Burnout, consistent injuries, and stagnation every time.

I can't speak for those in Indiana and Ohio since I'm not entirely familiar with them, I'd be making stuff up or talking out of my ass.

Would you be able to provide results from year to year, as well as mention of injuries for such runners?

I would say paavo greatly improved runningarts endurance if he went from 18's to high 15's for 5k cross and 9:55 to 9:32 in 3 years in the 3200. Also the comparison of mile time to 5k time has to take into consideration one is on a track and the other is xc.

Since paavo is more speed based, it is pretty obvious that one would improve much more rapidly in the mile than the 5k. Over time, improvements can be made at the longer distances too.

The paavo "system" is neither good nor bad, but is dependant on how it is coached. This is true of EVERY "system".

If I coached, I wouldn't have a problem with paavo during the 8-10 weeks of a season but would want the runners to just put in the miles offseason.

How many world class runners is using a system like Paavo?

I think they are easily counted...

I am a senior in high school, have a 16:16 personal best 5k, and i need to run fast for track to get noticed by a certain university. Would paavo help me reach my time goals. My training in the past has been like this summer ran high's of about 50 mpw low intensity, and duing the season dropped to about 35-40.

If i use it for one season it won't hurt. Am I right?

nokia wrote:

I am a senior in high school, have a 16:16 personal best 5k, and i need to run fast for track to get noticed by a certain university. Would paavo help me reach my time goals. My training in the past has been like this summer ran high's of about 50 mpw low intensity, and duing the season dropped to about 35-40.

If i use it for one season it won't hurt. Am I right?

You are correct.

Where can a guy actually find info on Paavo? I have a runner who's been to one of their camps (before moving to our town) and some knowledge of this program may explain some of her quirks to me.

Pre did 10 weeks of base work, then 30 weeks of intense anaerobic training. It worked for him, but would this work for everyone? Many local runners that use paavo improve faster initially, then either don't improve in college, or are perpetually injured. Maybe it is just the way it is coached, maybe not. But, I think it is a general truth that a high amount of intensity early on can lead to remarkably fast improvements, teamwise, but this is not always the best longterm plan.

In contrast, a Lydiard approach takes a little longer, but ultimately will produce greater results. And, it is a lot more fun, produces less injuries, etc.

1) Run as fast as you can.

2) Get injured as much as you can.

My coach tried to use paavo with me my senior year of hs. I hated it, and insisted that I go back to the Daniels plan - I knew it worked for me. My teammate, who was 1 year behind me had leveled off, and used it for 2 years with great success. I think it's very much based on the individual, and where they are in their training. I don't think its good to use as a permanent training program, but it can be useful for those good runners who may have leveled off and are looking to get to the next level.

anyways, thats my 2 cents.

Seen worse:

Arkansas had no frosh. run for them at nationals this year. Macpherson is a redshirt frosh. and not a Paavo runner.