Wetmore vs Daniels training

I hope you have more info about the Wetmore Plan than Running with the Buffaloes. If so, can you post it? But, I believe he's more Lydiard in his planning.

Daniels, on the other hand, uses those 200-400's early in the season for biomechanics than true speedwork.

As you develop your plan, check out Brad Hudson's book & Joe Vigil's book. (Vigil's book isn't very well written, but it's filled with good stuff.)

In a nutshell...

If you are looking at "Wetmore's Plan" from Running With the Buffalos, you'll noticed that one of the early season workouts he has the team run is a session of 300s with a 300 jog on grass(you may have to look it up, I'm going from memory at the moment). If you consider they are running at 5000+ feet of altitude, these guys were running about 1500m race effort/pace with a 2x jog recovery. That looks very similar to what Daniels' "repetition" workouts look like... intervals of 30-60 seconds at 1500m race effort with 1-2 minute jog recovery.

This is also very similar to Lydiards hill workouts during his second phase. Though Lydiards hill workouts included more true 'power' development with the bounding, there are short hill sprints involved.

If you look at Brad Hudson's training, he even prescribes a fair amount of short hill sprints (12 seconds) during his second phase.

They all have different methods of developing the same thing... speed, power and an introduction/preperation for event specific work that will come during the next phase.

I believe they all advice to keep the volume of faster work during these phase to something the athlete can manage, error on the side of caution and it's better to run 1-2 seconds too slow than 1-2 seconds too fast and to allow suffecient recovery between repetitions so that the workout does not become a deep anaerobic workout.

The biggest difference you'll see is the amount of time spent during these phases. The Wetmore/Lydiard plan has more time in phase 1 (base) than Daniels. Hudson's plan is closer in line with the Wetmore/Lydiard plan, but I believe he has his base phase divided into two ~6 week segments with the 2nd 6 week segment including the hill sprints.

I think Daniels plan allows for better racing thoughout the season, were as the Wetmore/Lydiard plan allows for greater improvement throughout the season and a better peak. But this is just my experience/opinion, having had athletes follow the guidelines of both approaches in different years.

*I'm sure Daniels and Hudson check out these boards and may be able to give you a better and more detailed comparison of their programs to the "others."

I would also be more interested in hearing more about the "Wetmore Plan". I don't know whether or not they actually still follow the training that was described in RWTBs.

I would look forward to a book from Mr. Wetmore himself covering not only his current philosophy but also how he has adapted / evolved since he was a high school coach.

BUMP!

Get Brad Hudson's book. Despite its corny title, it's a great book.

Whetmore's training has changed DRASTICALLY from the RWTB days. Mostly because he doesn't want his entire top seven getting injured.

The name is Wetmore but obviously you're trolling. Charles' (his actual first name, not Mark) training structure has not changed that much. His easier days are a little easier and shorter. Running with the Buffaloes will not give you much true insight into Colorado's training methodology. Very few people are intimately acquainted with let alone understand Wetmore's training methodology, which is kept secretive. I've used both plans for training and coaching. Wetmore's training, correctly applied, is more effective than Daniels, who is a great coach in his own right.Put Charles Mark Wetmore in Alberto Salazar's role at Nike and then you would REALLY see something special take place in the United States.

asdfsafsd wrote:

Whetmore's training has changed DRASTICALLY from the RWTB days. Mostly because he doesn't want his entire top seven getting injured.

OP-

To be honest, I don't think you have to choose one or the other. I don't think a one size fits all approach is necessary, although it might be easier to manage. As for Wetmore's training program, it has moderate volume (depending on the kid, it could vary anywhere from 50-110 mpw) which doesn't change that much throughout the season.

One or two days a week are distance days at moderate effort, one day is fast and long (AT or milers or similar) and one day is short and fast. The idea is to develop neuromuscular synapses while maintaining and slowly translating deep aerobic fitness into anaerobic tolerance. It works pretty well, and a lot of american distance success of late is founded upon similar ideologies. Any variation beyond this is trial by error, and you can iron out the details yourself and find what works for your individual athletes.

I read daniels back in high school and thought it had some interesting philosophy. I tend to think that volume alone is OK, but great when supplemented with a few Daniels principles (I like the AT stuff). However, It also tried to make coaching more scientific than it I think it really is. Perhaps someday we'll know enough for this approach to work, but for now I think coaching is more of an art and should be treated as such. Good luck.