Lydiard Question

Hey, I just finished that Lydiard buildup of 0 to 100, but I actually started in the middle of week 3 (I started on New Year's Day) and will finish my first 100 mile week ever tomorrow unless some act of God keeps me from running 11 miles sometime tomorrow. The only real problems I've had is some soreness on the outside of my knees, but it hasn't seemed too bad and it hasn't been anything that's affected my running.

I've been very careful to take this all at a much slower pace than I'm used to running (in the past I've done most of my training at 6:30-7:15/mile pace) and this time my long runs have been around 8:00 pace, but as far as simply getting the mileage in it's worked. Of course, I haven't raced on any of this yet, but I just wanted you to know that it can be done.

If it makes any difference, I'm also out of college by a few years, but the highest mileage I've ever done in a week before this is 80.

I wish you the best of luck!

in a sport full of epo the lydiard system is pointless...

Whats the 0-100miles per week program? never heard of it before. Is it as simple as 10-20-30-40-50etc or are there a few rest weeks thrown in and bigger weekly increases?

dc449, good luck with your quest, ignore mr. ham show he's a jealous prick

Go to Hodgie San's site. The Molvar thesis is there; it includes the progression.

Thanks for the input. Heres the link to the page on his site which explains this and Lydiards other stuff.

What's Hodgie San's site?

Hi Dc449,

A lot of people have asked me if they should start out at week 1 in the accent to 100 miles per week phase if they have already been running. I should probably have addressed this in my thesis because a lot of people ask the same question. The answer is no. You don?t need to start from scratch (week 1) of the program. So then the question is what week should you start? Say you have been averaging 45 miles per week and you want to start the Lydiard Program. You probably don?t want to start at the 45 mile week (week #5) of the Lydiard program. The reason is that a Lydiard 45 mile week is much more difficult than your typical 6-7 miles per day 45 mile week. Lydiard?s program?s alternate longer runs with shorter runs, rather than running the same distance every day. Alternating longer runs with shorter runs results in much faster improvement but is much harder. So you should probably start at Lydiard week #4 (34 mile) just to get yourself used to it.

Another example is a guy who has been running 90 miles per week on 2 a day runs who wants to switch to the Lydiard program. Dathan Ritzenhein is an example of this. He was a 90-95 mile per week runner in high school who was running twice per day. When he got to Colorado and on the Lydiard Program he was switched to one run per day and averaged 85 miles per week his freshman year. He has correctly pointed out that doing 85 miles per week the Lydiard way, i.e. running singles, alternating longer runs with shorter run and running up to 20 mile long runs, and doing all runs at a ?strong aerobic effort? and not doing any ?recovery/easy runs? is far more intense than running 95 miles per week in a typical 2 a day run program. It is also much more effective as seen in his amazing results his freshman year in which he was 4th in the NCAA XC race and his huge improvement from 13:44 to 13:27 in the 5000. So if you are a 90 mile per week runner who is running twice a day and you want to switch to Lydiard?s program, you don?t start from scratch at week 1 but you also should not start out at 100 miles per week, you should start out at maybe week 7, the 66 mile week.

Another point to make is when you finish a season and you start the process all over again, don?t skip the accent phase. Ritz found this out the hard way. Lydiard disciple Wetmore recommends his runner take 2 easy weeks followed by a 6 week assent to peak mileage at an easy pace. After his wildly successful freshman year, Ritz went almost immediately to peak mileage and was hammering away with Torres. They MAY have contributed to him getting injured.

I hope this info clarifies things.

Thanks for the great info on Dathan, and adjusting the Lydiard build-up!

Thanks a lot, thats exactly what I was wondering. Great thesis as well, it really sums thing up well.

Do people really stick with the 100miles per week base work for 5-8months!?

And what happend to the Hill phase - is it no longer part of Lydiards program?

John Molvar say:

>Another example is a guy who has been running 90 miles per week on 2 a day runs who wants to switch to the Lydiard program. Dathan Ritzenhein is an example of this. He was a 90-95 mile per week runner in high school who was running twice per day. When he got to Colorado and on the Lydiard Program he was switched to one run per day and averaged 85 miles per week his freshman year. He has correctly pointed out that doing 85 miles per week the Lydiard way, i.e. running singles, alternating longer runs with shorter run and running up to 20 mile long runs, and doing all runs at a ?strong aerobic effort? and not doing any ?recovery/easy runs? is far more intense than running 95 miles per week in a typical 2 a day run program. It is also much more effective as seen in his amazing results his freshman year in which he was 4th in the NCAA XC race and his huge improvement from 13:44 to 13:27 in the 5000. So if you are a 90 mile per week runner who is running twice a day and you want to switch to Lydiard?s program, you don?t start from scratch at week 1 but you also should not start out at 100 miles per week, you should start out at maybe week 7, the 66 mile week.<

John,

The great majority of the worlds most successful distance runners, run twice per day.

See Steve Scott log for example.

To say that Ritz improvement/progression was due to once daily running is misleading.

Wetmore has said in the past that his runners do singles mostly because of their busy schedules (though this does not make much sense to me) and not because they wish to stick to Lydiard's original design.

I believe your thesis does a nice job at explaining Lydiard's original system but I still believe doubles are the best way to build and maintain.

Lydiard has a plan so that you CAN go from 0-100 in 10 weeks. That does not neccessarily mean that you SHOULD go from 0-100 in 10 weeks. He has had success with lots of runners doing this plan, but I'm sure that he has had a lot more runners break down because of that mileage jump. We just don't hear about them however, because nobody likes to hear about the failures of training. This plan to go up to 100 per week depends a lot on what your previous mileage had been. And honestly, I would take 15 weeks AT THE VERY LEAST to build up to 100 mpw. 100 will come soon enough, but if you try to make it come too quickly, you could get injured- then what good has it done you?

joejoeyjoejoeshabadoo wrote:

And what happend to the Hill phase - is it no longer part of Lydiards program?

It got smaller and smaller every time Lydiard published his stuff. When I read his hill-training circuit, I'm thinking "This is plyometrics!" Does anyone agree?

John,

I was curious as to what happens if you stretch your base mile period from say 3-6 months to 5,6, maybe even 8 years. Does Lydiard say anything about prolonged base running(with only weekly tempo runs as "speed" workouts, no races, no track workouts or anyhting anerobic) and it's effects on performance?

What happens to your body if you do this week in and week out for 5-8 years (80-100miles). Let's assume the body of this person is built to handle high mileage.

thanks

How many posts will this get to before someone asks whether you are planning on racing and what distance races you plan on competing in?

Ringer say:

>How many posts will this get to before someone asks whether you are planning on racing and what distance races you plan on competing in?<

800m-marathon. The base training is essential for all. That is the heart of Lydiard.

lower impact stress than plyo. also, it seems to do away with a lot of the "formal" drills used nowadays by keeping it simple with an exaggerated running motion....nothing else.

Hodgie,

I don't disagree with you at all about running twice a day. And neither does Lydiard or Lydiard diciples Wetmore and Liquori. What all of us would tell you is that if you are going to run less than 100 miles per week, you should not break it up into 2 runs per day. Both Wetmore and Liquori will cite pratical reasons. If you go to two runs per day you are significanly adding to the amount of time you are putting into the sport with the extra showers, stretching, driving, etc. Liquori says don't go to twice a day unless you are going over 100 per week. Liquori averaged 110 to 140 during his prime.

Lydiard would say, and I agree with him, that running 100 miles per week in singles will result in much faster improvement than running 100 miles per week in doubles. So if you are going to go 100 or less you should not double in Lydiard's opinion and I agree with him.

My original point was just to say that running 85 per week in singles is much tougher and better for you than running 95 miles per week in doubles.

Now what about running more than 100 miles per week? Lydiard is all for it and so am I, provided 100 miles of your running is at a strong aerobic effort and the rest of the miles is at an easier pace. Lydiard's books say this and so does my thesis. The reason I am not saying we should have everyone go out and run 130 miles per week right off the bat is because of the terrible state of distance running in this country and the Runner's World mentality engrained in the coaches that got us here. Hodgie and Malmo and all the other old school guys know what it takes. However, and this is a generalization that does not apply to everyone, we have a whole generation of runners now who think running 70 miles per week is dangerous or too much, a whole generation who thinks you have to take 10 years to build up to 90 miles a week. A whole generation that thinks 95 miles per week is crazy. Let's get em up to 100 per week, then take on double later. See my point Hodgie?

PS Last I checked 0% of high school runners and less than 1% of college runners were running 100 miles per week.