LONG STEADY RUNNING only in BASE PREPARATION.

777 wrote:

wellnow wrote:

I think you are repeating a commone misconception. It doesn't take long to build a solid aerobic foundation. At the most six weeks and during that six weeks you should do some faster paced running.

Why spend months doing what only takes a few weeks?

Running fast is all about maintaining an economical stride, that is what takes a long time to develop. Developing aerobic fitness is easy. A few weeks of easy/medium and hard training (at the very most unless you are extremely unfit) and you reach a plateau of aerobic fitness, beyond that, aerobic fitness doesn't improve much, no matter how hard you train. What improves over time is economy economy economy. That's what it's all about man.

Wow. Lydiard would tear you a new one.

I understand Lydiard perfectly well. But I think it's wrong to accept every word he ever uttered as Gospel. Lydiard said a lot of things that were wrong.

I stand by every word I have said. I would appreciate some intelligent debate on the subject of base training, which I believe is a much abused term. I do base training all year round. I also do speed work all year round, and race all year round.

Think about how someone like Kenenisa Bekele trains and how he races most of the year. Is he wrong because he does things differently to how it's laid out in Running to the Top?

So I would be interested in seeing a sample week for this time of year from both schools of thought on this.

Well, the facts are that Lydiard trained Olympians, was the first and main proponent on the benefits of periodization, and thousands of runners and coaches still refer back to his teachings each year, while countless contemporary coaches, while trying to set themselves apart from his work, nonetheless draw from it. Conversely, you like to anonymously spout off on a letsrun forum where you can probably count on one hand the number of folks that actually care about your opinion on the matter. just sayin'

pete.. wrote: 'Only' is hardcore in that it is the FOCUS. Sure paces above the upper limit for this focus should occur

Then you didn't really mean "LONG STEADY RUNNING only" per your subject line. Your use of "only" here is not so far from sports commentators saying "literally" when they mean "figuratively".

While I cannot get behind your abuse of the language, I'm in at least broad agreement with your concept of base training. "Steady pressure on the system," yup.

abuse? of the language. Bloody words. ha ha

But we agree that 'steady pressure on the system' is fundamental.

Fundamental to developing the broader/deeper aerobic.

This is important ... essential ... unnecessary ... irrelevant?

Is this the best way to describe it, or is there a more precise way?

BASE PREPARATION

So we have the FOCUS

we have INCIDENTAL factors

and we have NATURALNESS to either retain or re-find.

pete

orville wright wrote:

So I would be interested in seeing a sample week for this time of year from both schools of thought on this.

A WEEK (from a 3 week macrocycle)

mon - am easy 30, pm best aerobic pace up to 1hr

tues- am easy 30-45, pm strides, easy 60, exercises

wed - am - easy 30, pm best aerobic pace up to 1hr

thurs - am easy 30-45, pm strides, easy longer run up to 90, exercises

fri - rest or easy run or cross training or fun

sat - 3rd seesion of best aerobic paced 1 hr running or faster shorter run/XC race/timetrial

sun - longer run anywhere from 90-150mins

-for me the first two weeks of the macro are similar and follow the pattern above; the 3rd week is radically different. Volume becomes secondary to freshening in the third week.

Looking for other sample weeks.

Pete

mon - am easy 30, pm best aerobic pace up to 1hr

What pace would that best aerobic pace be - compared to race results?

C.

cr47 wrote:

mon - am easy 30, pm best aerobic pace up to 1hr

What pace would that best aerobic pace be - compared to race results?

C.

Compared to race results i don't know. Too many individual variables for me to have any certainty in being theoretical. A case study instead maybe?

John is becoming an 800m runner. He was a 400m runner, 49.5 at 18 off random training. Accidently ran 153.40 last season at 19 so he thought he should try the 800m. After some months of training he has stabilised within his Lydiard-like training method and hit his first 2hour run on Sunday. His paces are:

long easy run 4:50+/km

easy run 4:30-5:00/km

long steady run 4:20-4:00

steady run 4:00-3:40/km (this is best aerobic pace for me - tested over 1 hour)

timetrial over 4km 3:19/km

strides down to 12.0secs/100m so far

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from that 'best aerobic pace' as a definition is quite clear i think.

-Best is obvious

-Aerobic pace would indicate that the predominant energy source is from the aerobic system.

-So the best pace you can run at and be continuously refreshed by the aerobic system is 'best aerobic pace'.

pete

Interesting base training. Strides faster than 400m pace and quite fast time trials included ... so that base training looks not so fundamentalist as one would have guessed from your earlier posts in this thread. You could run intervals (e. g. 5*1000 at 3:20/k)instead of the time trial, woudnt make much difference, or do you think it would?

So there is some tempo and quality in your base training - but the tempo is not very challenging for such a fast runner, besides the fast strides (and maybe the time trial)i could do this myself, and i am much slower on the 800.

So why not use more specific sprint training instead of strides, shoud that not be useful for a 400/800 guy?

This should be the case for paces like 3k or 5k race pace as well ... some might say, best aerobic pace could be even mile pace ...

But i think you talk about something similar to what Jack Daniels calls "threshold pace"?

So this looks like 3 quality workouts to me in the schedule you posted earlier (best aerobic pace on monday and wednesday and the saturday race / time trial etc.)

C.

orville wright wrote:

So I would be interested in seeing a sample week for this time of year from both schools of thought on this.

Then compare Lydiard training to modern training (i.e. the last 30 years) From Coe onwards. Or look at Renato Canova's training examples on this website.

competitor wrote:

Well, the facts are that Lydiard trained Olympians, was the first and main proponent on the benefits of periodization, and thousands of runners and coaches still refer back to his teachings each year, while countless contemporary coaches, while trying to set themselves apart from his work, nonetheless draw from it. Conversely, you like to anonymously spout off on a letsrun forum where you can probably count on one hand the number of folks that actually care about your opinion on the matter. just sayin'

Very true. But since then things have changed somewhat. And for The top distance runners, speeds have improved considerably.

You might take comfort from the fact that Lydiard style training could provide a medal winner at Beijing, since the winning time will be 13.15 or slower in the 5000 and 27.30 or slower in the 10000.

However, the general misconception that Africans are genetic distance runnning freaks has to be adressed, with a programme designed to help other nations to run super fast times in those distances. This requires a different build up.

It is vitally important for me to anonymously spout off on this letsrun forum, the fact that Lydiard didn't know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic, since he based his knowledge of these biochemichal events on A.V. Hill's biomechanical model of 1923, an incorrect model.

Let me explain:

When a fit young lad with low bodyfat runs 10 60 second 400's with short recovery, his contribution of energy supply is more than 90% aerobic and less than 10% anaerobic, and that's why he should be running that pace or quicker for about 10 months of the year.

cheers C.

I can't claim to be a fundamentalist although i think the fundamentals are the more important bits. Also i think when in a phase or meso-cycle respecting what's it's purpose is, is very important. 'What is the focus of this phase?' is a question i ask myself.

The strides are building up to as fast as possible short of strain. On paper it is expressed as 4-5x80-100m/walkback from 50-90%. They learn to build by 10% each successive stride. They are to keep the feeling of naturalness more than anything whilst all of this longer stuff is completed. Also kind of preventative medicine against the negative changes that often occur in runners technique during these preparation months.

The timetrials are about having a fullout hitout. About testing the mind and body's ability to push maximum. Again preventative medicine against losing this ability during the preparation months. Also it is the counter-opposite of the longer running and is necessary for balance. Finally it makes things more exciting - the athletes have personal bests for things throughout Winter.

I think his levels are continuously raising. This is his first real training program and definitely his first or the 800m. He had done very little aerobic long running prior to 3 months ago. For example 3 weeks ago he PRed his 4km timetrial with a time 40 seconds slower than this week. So thats 3:29/km pace. In 3 months time when we are done with this phase i'm hoping things are a lot quicker. Again for example he wants to run a time that would be 3:07/km pace. I think it is a reasonable goal so didn't suggest any amendment.

On the second point i wonder if he is a 400/800 guy? Or is he simply an 80kg 6'1" monster with an untapped super aerobic engine that is 800 specific?

Why not use specific sprint training? I do but in base preparation only the base preparation aspects. And not as if they were a 100m runner of course. Instead simply in terms of discovering in them their speed potential, their natural leg turnover and natural stride length. And not maximally enhanced like a 100m runner would need, but enhanced as much as possible short of eating into aerobic development time.

Sprinting base preparation mostly involves changing technique if one is not a sprinter purist. To assist the achievement of this change, fatigue is introduced alongside the technical adjustments. Initially the technical adjustment is introduced and practised over strides and once stable, fatigue is introduced through longer runs to test whether the adjustment can be maintained.

A sprinter would also do a volume of his shorter, higher tempo running that the 800m runner does not and of course the resistance training with bodyweight and free weights is less for the 800m runner than the sprinter.

Good call ... my definition sucks. I just don't know how to define this pace/feeling when one is working against their edge. That feeling of working with effort but short of any of the burning sensations that seem to come on once lactate and it's buddies are building up, past some point where they are kept under control. The MLSS Steve McGregor would say is this threshold (i think). Certainly for this type of run one must go above the AnT or whatever it is called and produce more side effects than can be buffered or diluted or whatever. Also certainly for this run it needs to be extended as long as possible although more than an hour seems unnecessary but i don't know why.

I think Lydiard's best pace and Daniels' threshold pace are the same thing, but again not certain as i haven't really looked into Daniels too much ... but i have his tables here so i will begin.

Yes, the third could well be on Fri with Sat becoming the rest day. Just depends on which training week it is and when the XC races are on.

pete

Wellnow, sorry i didn't respond earlier i guess i was caught up in the other questions.Looking now at some of your posts i will try and respond.

Three tricky questions. Firstly, as i fine tune my approach and method of describing it, one of the main long running beliefs i have is to save time whenever possible. This of course is tempered with the fact that the end product has to be quality. An analogy might be baking a cake. A premix from the supermarket tastes very different to a creation from a master chef or your friend's grandma. Same with MD runners.

This brings up the second question. I guess i tolerate a certain loss of speed when preparation is underway, but not a lot. Moreso what i look for is retention of their naturalness which has been hard to quantify so far. If this is lost then all the long running is emphasising movements which are not going to transfer into the faster stuff later on. Also if naturalness in technique is retained real speed is only ever 3 weeks away. When i was 19 and 1 year into my training i met an idol in my home city. Daley Thompson. He trained with us and hung around for a while. Just before he let i asked him one question. 'What is the most important thing you can tell me?' His answer was 'always do speed at least every 3 weeks'. Maybe this was his way of retaining his 'naturalness'.

Maybe it is easy to get lost once we start to train from our naturalness? After all we are changing ourselves through this training process. What if the direction is a bit off. What if Lydiard's direction finding duck was more accurate than the rest.

The third question is kind of redundant following the first two answers. Anyway moving on.

I feel so differently about the two parts to this post. The majority of it you will have to explain to me as i simply can't agree. How can the aerobic be developed in a few weeks? The shortest i can see it being done is 12 weeks and that is for a multi-year trained athlete undergoing a double periodised year.

The other part though is close to my heart, the technical/mechanical side of all of this. This economical stride is the product of the technical/mechanical and is one third of the total picture in my take on things. The other thirds are occupied by the fitness/conditioning and the psychological/spiritual.

But would he tear you a new one or not for your statements which directly contradict part of his gospel? I have fun but seriously i do look at Lydiard a bit like he is a prophet. But this is a deliberate choice i try to make with all things initially. Give it the ultimate benefit of doubt before critically analysing it.

As for intelligent debate on the two methods of achieving aerobic fitness, long running ala Lydiard and intervals ala most of everyone else, we are underway. Please contribute.

by the way the following isn't very constructive to the debate

Possibly we can get some more sample weeks?

and finally ... sorry it turned into an essay.

There is fun to be had again, you shouldn't provide so much ammunition :) The incorrectness of Hill's model is still up for debate but one thing i am sure is that what he found still holds true, it is just a better explanation is in the waiting. Noakes is onto it! On another note i don't know if Lydiard based his theories on fitness on Hill. I don't think base is the right word and i don't think you have the direction correct. I think Lydiard matched up what Hill proposed to his own experiences in training more than went out exploring after getting some theories. What fitted was accepted and what didn't may well have been rejected. I wish i knew but i surmise as a fellow traveller.

I do agree with you that there is a great fear of African MD runners which inhibits Westerners a lot. Canova put it quite nicely in saying something like Westerners have less talent but more continuity whereas the Africans have more talent than continuity. So a Ryun or a Pre of modern day can be more continuous with their career than the normal African talented runner. I know someone with enough talent who is going for it without fear at the age of 16.

You mention the at things have changed considerably since Lydiard times and mention the race speeds as one thing that has changed. What are the others for one question. The other wonders whether these speeds are mainly a product of the surfaces we now run on and the basic truth that we always aspire further, so a standard that has already been achieved is sooner or later surpassed. True for the record and for the levels of achievement below that record.

Oh was Hill model about biochemical or biomechanical factors :)

So we have two sides to this debate now Wellnow and it appears you and I are on opposite sides. Time for your version.

Pete

ps start a thread on economy i would love to get into it.

Any suggestion that you can develop aerobically quickly and speed work is the long term prorposition is just plain wrong.. so if that helps your decision.

runner_pucci wrote:

Any suggestion that you can develop aerobically quickly and speed work is the long term proposition is just plain wrong.. so if that helps your decision.

It definitely helps the argument for steady pressure.

I stand by my comment that aerobic fitness can be achieved very quickly.

Aerobic fitness = mitochondrial mass, and it takes a maximum of six weeks to achieve this, much less in someone who has been keeping in good shape.

However, mitochondrial mass will not in itself make you a fast middle and long distance runner. This is why it is important to emphasize running economy by doing interval training and/or tempo runs regularly.

So 12 weeks minimum might be a necessary time frame for aerobic conditioning in terms of the speed requirements of racing, but it is not necessary for aerobic fitness, these are two very different things.

Anyways Pete, you were a decathlete, so my question to you is; how many aspects of track and field do you coach?

wellnow wrote:

I stand by my comment that aerobic fitness can be achieved very quickly.

Aerobic fitness = mitochondrial mass, and it takes a maximum of six weeks to achieve this, much less in someone who has been keeping in good shape.

However, mitochondrial mass will not in itself make you a fast middle and long distance runner. This is why it is important to emphasize running economy by doing interval training and/or tempo runs regularly.

So 12 weeks minimum might be a necessary time frame for aerobic conditioning in terms of the speed requirements of racing, but it is not necessary for aerobic fitness, these are two very different things.

Anyways Pete, you were a decathlete, so my question to you is; how many aspects of track and field do you coach?

I hate to get into this debate so late in the game, and admittedly I've only skimmed through the thread and am perhaps missing some specifics.

I'll start out by stating some assumptions based on the quote above:

You are asserting that aerobic fitness can be achieved very quickly. I'm not sure what you mean by that or how you define aerobic fitness. It has ben my experience that it'll take many many years to get a runner to progress from, say 20 miles a week at 8:30 pace to 90 miles a week at 6:30 pace. Maybe what you are saying is that running velocity, duration, and training load are not directly related to "aerobic fitness" but are an accumulations of other factors such as economy. I don't peronaly care what it is called. I only care about getting faster.....which leads me to my next point.

I have worked with a lot of above average but not great triathletes with their running. Many of them had adopted an approach of high quality, low quantity running. A few coaches along with myself have, with probably 98% success, vastly improved their performances by getting them to put in long periods of running at 65-80% of max heart rate where their focus was on gradualy building their weekly mileage. Many, in fact, had run PRs before transitioning back into a mulitpaced phase.

How would you account for this? To use an analogy, you are the scientist telling me that it is physicaly impossible for a bumble bee to fly and I am the bee keeper telling you that I'm watching them fly.

This isn't to say that an approach that incorporated some higher intensity training during a "base" phase wouldn't be better, only that I have seen a lot of value in a style of training that you *seem* to be claiming plateaus in a very short period of time.

I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding you.

Let me give you another example of a common misconception held by 99.999% of runners and coaches:

If a runner does 1.55 for 800m 4.10 for 1500m and 16.30 for 5000m then the common belief is that the runner is "aerobically weak"

Nothing could be further from the truth. The runner lack distance running pace because he has not done enough practice at the longer distance paces.

He is not aerobically weak at all, he is uneconomical at paces beyond 800m, this problem pertains to the learning processes of of maintaining stride length and efficiency.

Barry, I think that all paces are important for developing race performances. But it's easy to fll into the trap of over-emphasizing a certain pace in the mistaken belief that it is or was more effective in gaining this mythical "aerobic fitness"

Wouldn't it be true to say that the triathletes you and others work with have benefited from the fast stuff and the steady running?

I also want to re-emphasize my point that running lots of 60 second laps is mostly aerobic training for the best distance runners, and so it should be a recipe for thousands of young non-African runners too.

I believe that Lydiardism has put a lot of doubt into people's minds about how much running talent they really have, because of the mistaken belief that running fast = going anaerobic.

There is no such thing as "going anaerobic" this is a very old and wrong concept. The biochemistry actually happens in reverse of that old dogma, we start anaerobic and then go aerobic, so the second lap of an 800m race is actually much more aerobic than the first.

So in light of this, wouldn't you say that athletic coaching needs to be drastically re-assessed in terms of mainstream public consciousness?

I certainly think so. You are a much better athlete than you think you are.