Are distance runners TOO cautious about speedwork?

Let us know how it works out.

" Also, I am curious to see how fast I could run 400m. But, my main concern is if I could harm myself in anyway by doing this. I don't like the idea of damaging my mitochondria."

if you don't do your speedwork at exactly the right time and the right pace, your mitochondria will implode.

It is overtraining that destroys enzymes, mitochondria and athletes, not speed training. If you've been hanging with the Lydiard/Vigil/Larson believers you've been learning about as much bad physiology as good. Having trained former athletes of all three coaches I can assure you the real miracles are far between, with as many double stress fractures, burnout syndromes and tailspins as successes. Somehow those never seem to make it into the clinics. Truth is one size doesn't fit all.

Rather than going from one extreme to another here,why not fix the knee problem and get back to training in ways more conducive to your development --learn from your mistakes. Yes, your observations about the soccer players doing just fine are telling. It should tell you a lot actually, just as Ritz's recent comments on training at sea level, and Lagat's success on medium mileage should tell you something also. Mostly it all should tell you there's a world of training approaches out there for the middle and long distances, and maybe, just maybe you have to find your own way.

What you're looking to do is a lot like the way I was trained in my early years in college and high school. It didn't work for me. I suspect that someone whose aerobic capabilities are naturally high might get some useful results from that sort of thing. But at some point most of us will need some volume in order to run fast at any sort of distance.

The comparison you're making with a quarter miler would be more helpful if the guy dabbled in longer races and got decent results. Most quarter milers I knew who trained that way couldn't even produce decent times at a half mile. But keep us posted ifyou try it.

dsrunner wrote:

Lagat's success on medium mileage should tell you something also.

It should indeed.

There was a study a few years ago that compared performance between one group who exercised on a stationary bike for an hour at a moderate pace, and one group who did much less volume something like 20 min, but included a bunch (15-20) of 10 sec all out sprints.

The two groups were tested on a work till exhaustion test at 80% VO2 max before and after the program. You know who improved the most? You guessed it. The sprint group.

cassio598 wrote:

There was a study a few years ago that compared performance between one group who exercised on a stationary bike for an hour at a moderate pace, and one group who did much less volume something like 20 min, but included a bunch (15-20) of 10 sec all out sprints.

The two groups were tested on a work till exhaustion test at 80% VO2 max before and after the program. You know who improved the most? You guessed it. The sprint group.

Probably muscle fatigue issues, not aerobic differences.

Hi dsrunner,Any chance you could elaborate on your post? What bad physiology do Lydiard/Vigil/Larson et al. promote? Do they overtrain some athletes, in your opinion? If so, how? Too much mileage? To much threshold work? Not enough of something?And if I may, I'd like to push back at the argument you make in your second paragraph: there are a world of approaches, but for an athlete with limited time to train at a high level(say, 10-12 years, max), doesn't it make sense to try to get through the trial and error stuff quickly and learn from the mistakes of others? As in, don't we already know that high intensity low volume training is not as effective as a high volume moderate intensity program? Or maybe we only know this anecdotally? Or maybe we don't know this?Thanks, PP

cassio598 wrote:

There was a study a few years ago that compared performance between one group who exercised on a stationary bike for an hour at a moderate pace, and one group who did much less volume something like 20 min, but included a bunch (15-20) of 10 sec all out sprints.

The two groups were tested on a work till exhaustion test at 80% VO2 max before and after the program. You know who improved the most? You guessed it. The sprint group.

Which proves what?

It proves that exercising on a stationary bike for an hour at a moderate pace, isn't going to get you in very good shape.

Hey Petey

Yes I believe there are some real problems with the Lydiard and Vigil ideology in particular ( and that overtraining is commonplace with both) but I would have to set up an entire thread or even an afternoon clinic to go over all of my differences. You can check some of my other posts on Lets Run, but here are a just a few points with which I take issue:

1. the idea that more mileage is better without exception

2. the idea that stamina work will develop pure speed

3. the idea that speed training curtails aerobic development.

4. the idea that altitude offers advantages without risk

5. the idea that effective training must proceed in phases

6. the idea that oxygen delivery is the alpha and omega of good distance running.

7. the idea that long runs confer greater cellular adaptations.

8. the idea that running less weekly mileage is a sign of personal weakness, sloth, or less of a drive to succeed.

In regards to the OP, he gave no specifics on how he might be running those intervals sessions (they could be either very helpful and regenerative or hurtful depending on his choices for speed and recovery). It is far more important that he is beginning to think for himself, and recognizing that his friends may be steering him wrong, or at least pushing an approach that in his case might not be best for him.

We don't really know what sort of program is best for the OP. He might be a 4x400m/800m type runner, or a miler who runs his best mark on 25-50 miles/week, not 125-150 miles/week. If I were advising this kid I would let him test his speed right away. I want to know what sort of muscle fiber composition he has, and I want to see what paces he selects and enjoys. I want to make sure the kid is having fun in his training and not just slogging away. More than likely he is curious about the 400m because it represents a new direction. More than anything though I want to pull the kid away from his previous mistakes far enough that he can begin seeing some progression again, begin to see himself as the sort of runner he is and can be.

From the Lydiard perspective:

#1 is not an idea Lydiard ever promoted. He advocated "good volume" but aside from saying what his original runners did never insisted on any level of mileage

#2. Lydiard never said that it did. He did believe that late in a race speed was useless if you were too exhausted to be able to run at top speed. But he said that you should work on your speed year round.

#3. Probably true.

#4. Lydiard was never a big fan of altitude training though he wasn't adamantly against it. He moer or less ignored it unless someone asked him.

#5. By the late 70s he had a model which did not proceed in distinct phases.

#6. Not a Lydiard idea. Certainly oxygen delivery is essential but not the alpha and omega. That's why the method includes types of training beyond steady runs.

#7. Yes. Definitely a Lydiard idea.

#8. Certainly not something Lydiard ever said. But looking for reasons to run less than you need to, however much that may be, might indeed be signs of some of those attributes.

I'm a big admirer of Lydiard's. However, I don't really care if there are other ways that people want to train. But if you're going to object to the method you really should object to what the method is and isn't and not to some idea of it that you've created for yourself.

Thanks everyone for their comments. I also like that there has been a respectful mini-debate here between . It allows me to see the logic of different sides. Both HRE and dsrunner make some strong cases but I must admit that I am starting to lean towards dsrunner's logic.

dsrunner, I don't know if I'm a "kid" but I am relatively new to running (last couple years). I am in college but don't compete for a XC or track team. I have run 5k to 10k road races. I had worked up to averaging 60 mpw (with a few at close to 80) before getting injured.

I do think I have some natural speed.

Whenever I play pickup basketball, soccer, or American football I'm usually one of the speediest guys (although not always the most skilled!!). Since I'm injured and can't do long runs anyway, I just thought it would be cool to see what happens if I do fast "anaerobic" stuff 5 times a week or so like the 400m guy I mentioned in my OP. If I find out I can run a fast 400m or 800m, that would be some interesting information....maybe I'll then run some summer all comer meets or something.

I'm not saying that doing all these 400m workouts are going to make me a great 10k runner. But, until I recover I can't do longer runs anyway. I'm essentially calling into question whether all this anaerobic speed work is truly harmful depending how it's done (i.e. point number 3 in dsrunner's excellent response above) . If I find out that it's not harmful, after I recover from my injury I may incorporate a LOT more speed work into at least my 5k road race prep.

My hunch is that I can handle things like 5x300 every day without doing any damage - provided I recover between reps enough. I would think that it's the "speed work" that distance runners often do (like 4x1600m with not enough recovery) that can trash a person if done too often.

How does your injury react to something like 2 miles at a steady pace then accelerate to tempo pace for another 1 to 1.5 miles.

A few years back, I had a really good mileage base under me, but went through a period of on again, off again sickness that lasted for about 2 months. When I started running again, I really didn't have much time, so I tried to run a steady 2-4 miles every day. I was only getting about 20-25 miles per week, but managed a pretty good 8k after about 6 weeks of that.

I, like you, had a decent base before the layoff.

I am not arguing that this is the formula for long term success, but that this might help in coming back from an injury.

Use Google to investigate "fartlek."

You sound like the kind of person who might benefit by having the bulk of his running done at change-of-pace. (By the way, change of speed even within shorter reps is the best method of developing the speed endurance that you'd use in an all-out 400.)

Different things work for different people. Bannister ran pretty fast (on not-so-fast tracks) with a limited amount of mileage.

I agree that you should also see an athletic trainer or other sports-medicine pro to find out about preventing repetitions of the injury in future.

I ran a 9:19 two miler on 25 miles a week.One track workout 5x200 and 1x300 and speed drills.

My response above covered some basic disagreements with both Lydiard and Vigil, so of course some of these points will apply more or less to Lydiard. In spirit certainly, what I wrote is a very accurate depiction of Lydiard's core beliefs and the after-effects of his influence.

dsrunner,

I appreciate the response. I'm also trying to be mindful of the differences between training middle distance and distance runners, as I believe these differences are significant. But the reference you made was to Lydiard/Vigil and Larson, and Vigil and Larson are now exclusively distance coaches, though Lydiard of course coached across the spectrum.

Maybe part of what you're trying to get at is that under a high volume program, there is potential for coaches and athletes to tend toward overtraining and to neglect basic speed work? But then wouldn't a good coach realize those potential pitfalls? So maybe the problem you're getting at isn't a philosophical problem with the high volume approach and is rather a practical one?

Or is it a philosophical problem? All things being equal, doesn't it make sense to put an athlete on a program that emphasizes volume? That is to say, how can a well coached athlete running 25mpw and high density speed work compete over 1 mile with a well coached athlete running 70-80mpw and moderate speed work, say- one session of 'tempo' running and one to two sessions of shorter (200-1600m) track work, assuming they have similar ability?

Or maybe this: is there an athlete that you would not allow to run high volume based on his or her basic ability? I allow that some athletes cannot handle volume because they get injured, but are there other types of runners for whom volume doesn't make sense?

I ask these questions in good faith, as I'm a new coach and I'd like to be open minded. But I find myself thinking that the criticisms you have raised are criticisms of bad coaching, not bad programs. That said, for the OP, I believe your advice is sound: if he is looking to make a transition to the 400-800 world, reevaluating high volume makes sense. I've seen athletes run very, very fast over 800m with relatively little aerobic work. But beyond 800m... I'm not sure.

Thanks again,

PP

HRE, Speed workd doesn't curtail aerobic development. That is a myth. Lack of appropriate distance work curtails aerobic development.

Also, long runs don't confer greater cellualar adaptations, but rather different cellular adaptations.

If you really want Lydiardism to be taken seriously, it would help if you could separate the wrong ideas from the right, rather than just believing everything he said. Arthur was often wrong.