VO2 max for 10k?

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

I'm trying to be careful how to use the terms "aerobic" and "anaerobic". Some people would call VO2max interval training "aerobic", while for Lydiard, they would be "anaerobic". I'm not playing with words, but just wish to avoid this confusion.

I'm afraid you misunderstand Lydiard time trials. They are systematic. Time trials at the desired race distance are specific, except maybe the first few, because they are too slow. The last thing they are is “all flat out runs”.

Your private correspondence with Nobby remains private.

I agree, that repetition pace training is not determined by specific race pace, except by chance. I only stated that time trials are specific.

I don't wish to discuss Lydiard's intervals or periodization, except to recognize the disagreement.

Hey, don´t bother. We all know that Cabral is one of the most notorious Lydiard haters on LR. He was also the guy responsible for chasing former world class runner Marius Bakken away from LR. Cabral seems like a genuine @sshole to me. His posts are all the same: an ocean of words with little substance.

I don't recall if Lydiard mentioned this in his earlier books,

but I'm quite certain that in his later books, he stated that time trials were to be run at 7/8 effort.

Bob Wildes wrote:

I don't recall if Lydiard mentioned this in his earlier books,

but I'm quite certain that in his later books, he stated that time trials were to be run at 7/8 effort.

Precisely. If it´s true what you say it´s the reason why it´s not race pace target. Nothing in Lydiard training is race pace target or specifics target.

On Lydiard nothing moves from generic training. Lydiard training just progress along the season periodistion from easy to faster, or aerobics to anaerobic, or distance volume to low mileage quality, from quantity to quality.

Independently what´s the runner physiologic character, what´s the goal distance event or what´s the comperiive schedule everything goes around an early build of aerobic shape condition to able anaerobic training. Nothing is relate to specificity.

Lydiard training doesn´t see the trainig as specificity. Might be in the need of aerobics because he knows that aerobics is the main quality in the distance events. From that on he just think to develop the organic systems that might enhance the performance and nothing else.

In my opinion the Lydiard periodisation is stupidity. Once again, not that Lydiard was stupid, it´s that training concept that is stupidity. However it´s not just Lydiard that advices that kind of season periodisation.

The idea of "aerobic first" or to create an "good aerobic basic condition" early in teh season to later support anaerobic training or with that process results in superior perfromance enahnce IS ONE STUPID IDEA OF MANY.

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

I'm trying to be careful how to use the terms "aerobic" and "anaerobic". Some people would call VO2max interval training "aerobic", while for Lydiard, they would be "anaerobic". I'm not playing with words, but just wish to avoid this confusion.

It´s the only thing that you say that i agree. Absolutely.

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

Time trials at the desired race distance are specific, except maybe the first few, because they are too slow. The last thing they are is “all flat out runs”.

I see…when Peter Snell does 600m in 1:19 against John Davies; with 400m split in 53sec split, or the same Peter Snell does 800m in 1:47 it´s not “all flat out”, it´s 7/8 pace. I see…When he does 1200m in 2:56 in other time-trial it´s not “all flat out” it´s 800m race pace or 1500m race pace. I see…

malmo wrote:

Tempo runs and long runs rate far down on the level of importance for 10k training. So low that you could completely do without them if you wanted to. Most importance would be repeats (800-2000m) at race pace.

So would it be good method to train for 10K using only race pace repeats + easy runs? (and maybe a little amount of work on your kick)

Antonio. I had this very same "specific" discussion with a certain "Kadaffi out of power" in March, and I'm sorry I got sucked into it again. At that time, he conceded that indeed I was right, that "time trials" and "solo races" are indeed "specific work":

RE: Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard 3/14/2011 9:27AM - in reply to rekrunner

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

rekrunner

I agree that time-trial and solo race is the kind of specific work and you are right again that does qualify the intervals.

Maybe you disagree with him?

At that time, I said that "time trials and races" in this "coordination phase" were "specific", while "aerobic" conditioning, "hill" resistance training, and "anaerobic" interval training and "windsprints" were not necessarily "specific" by design.

I don't know what secret schedules you possess in your private e-mail about Snell and Davies, but can only go by the recommendations written to the public in every Lydiard book, and Lydiard presentation.

Since you asked for references with page numbers, but maybe don't have the book, I will summarize it here. All of these books and presentations describe the use of time-trials and races at your distance which start at slightly less than race pace, and get progressively faster each week, until the first important competition. The stated purpose is to get your body accustomed to the specific conditions it will experience during real racing, as your body adapts best to the conditions it is subject to. They all describe too that, depending on how the athlete behaves during the time-trials, you may need to do under-distance time trials to improve your speed, or over-distance time-trials to improve your stamina. In other words, what is written as a preliminary plan, and what is actually done (e.g. by Snell and Davies), may be different things, as there are several guidelines to modify the schedules based on the athletes current fitness, strengths and identified weaknesses.

In the case of 800m time trials, (or 600m or 1200m) these may be described as "all flat out runs", but they are better described as "determined by race pace".

If you want to say these "specific workouts" are too little too late, that's one thing. If you want to say that "intervals" are a better implementation of "specific" workouts than continuous runs (time-trials and races), that's another. But you can not truthfully say that Lydiard neglects specific training, and that no workout is determined by "race pace".

You should also know by now, that even the "classic" periodization is not sacred, but can be adapted to fit the athletes competition needs.

I think it's time you read a little more about Lydiard, and you will see that I'm right, and do your own intellectual penitence.

If you ask me if one race is SPECIFICS, I will say ther´s nothing more specific that one race. But what I mean by race ? By race I mean the runner gets and entry have the bib/number and participates in one race. This is the top of specifics, the race of his own distance event.

However this is not the meaning of race that I see on Lydiard. On Lydiard what I see it´s that he says “race” to solo training workouts, that if so short of one set of 100meters distance or a solo 200m, for one distance runner that trains to compete in 800m and 1500m events.

Go on and read Run to the Top (1962 and 1968 edition) and you will that he names race to one single 100m run all flat out effort. You might read Run to the Top with Master Coach Arthur Lydiard By Garth Gilmour, Arthur’s biographer and you might read “Run 400m at full-effort”. What you think that is 400m-full effort ? Isn´t all flat out equivalent ? Yes it is !

And Yes. Timetrials, solo-races is more specific than just aerobics. If it´s closer to the race pace it´s more specific.

I guess that you might stop to mention my refernce to private emails, because on this post, everything I mention is from books and editions, and I read it and I have it.

From the Run to the Top with Master Coach Arthur Lydiard you might read: “Aerobic running is designed to raise the maximum steady state and increase endurance to get you through later fast or anaerobic training”.

You see…once again it´s said…"later fast anaerobic training!”. It´s written, it´s how he sees it. What that means ? It means what i told you: aserobics first and then anaerobics, never generic from specifics.

Not specifics or race-pace. Both words/expressions don´t exist as words or in concepts on the Lydiard method.

But I'm not asking you any questions. You asked where Lydiard wrote about specificity. Since Lydiard uses other words, and includes a variety of other workouts, I told you where you can find workouts at race pace in the Lydiard method. It's an important feature of the final stage of training. If you do not look where I say, there is nothing more I can do for you.

this guy is absolutely right. the rest of you guys are fighting over other stuff. he nailed it. now decide between these which combo you want. 75% fight, 25% easy , or 50% fight, 50% easy you decide and train like malmo or anyone else... accordingly.

How many VO2Max workouts should i do per week?

Sanders- wrote:

How many VO2Max workouts should i do per week?

Just one! Not more or less. You will not gain more from doing more of maxVO2-intervals.

This is a demanding workout that needs more recovery.

There is mainly 3 factors that determining the middle-longdistance result, maxVO2-pace, LT-pace and the aerobic power-pace. ALL of them are of equal importance and needs a perfect weekly balance.