HRE & Others: Critique This 1:59 800m Base Plan

And yes, I am the OP.

Again, I don't really know how you're looking to come at this and again, why you're using Lydiard as a frame of reference when you're not looking to put together a Lydiard style program.

If you're looking at this from a Lydiard perspective and you're looking to have a base period you wouldn't do hard intervals or a hard 800 in this phase, though you aren't really defining what hard and fast would be. You're only going to have so many really hard races in you and if you do a couple a week in training indefinitely you may be pretty fried when racing time comes. But if they're hard but a bit scaled back that's different. The same goes for the short, hard, intervals. I don't know how many or how hard but you have things in here that could be beneficial but also could fry you if overdone. Same for the 6:00 pace runs. I still don't know how hard that is for you or if you're planning to lengthen them or to keep them at two miles. The only thing that looks unquestionably positive are the AM jogs. The other stuff could be good or could be overdone depending on you and the extent to which you do it.

Ron Daws used to say that good training and bad training can look identical on paper. You can't really evaluate a program without a context.

HRE: Yes, I thought I made this clear, but the 6 m/m pace runs will be perpetually lenthened as I build my base as long as they feel relaxed and comfortable. The reason I am asking Lydiard guys' advice is because I agree very much with his training principles for the most part, other than the emphasis on periodization. I am planning to do training incorporating his principles with what I have found to work for me and what I see as rational, rather than copying his programs. The competition phases from "Jogging with Lydiard" and Walker's training both seem workable in a base-building situation if one scaled back the very hard efforts.

In jogging with Lydiard, the 800/1500 plan suggests 2 time trial days (one for long sprints and one for 1500m), one day of wind sprints all out, one day of 100m reps fast and relaxed, one day of fartlek, and two days of easy jogging.

From this thread,

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=326710&page=1

"This from Track Technique, June of '76... Kim can probably comment on how accurate this is.

John Walker

Non-competitive season:

M-10 miles easy, 56:00 on grass w/ flat & some hills

T-11 miles on hills, running the flats hard

W-18 miles at under 6:00 pace

T- 11 miles am, 7 miles hard PM

F-10 miles on grass

S-15 miles on flat road in 1:21:00 (@5:24/miles)

S-18-23 miles on a hard course maintaining a 6:00 pace

Volume:100-105 miles/week

Competitive season:

M- AM- 10 miles fast PM 2 miles at a reasonable pace (@8:40-8:47)

T- AM 8 miles in hills PM 6 x 200 in 26

W-AM 8 miles fast Pm-2 miles in 50-60 yard reps very hard; or 6 x 400 in 55-57

T- AM 8 miles PM 2x1 mile 4:03 average, 3 miles in 13:40; or 15 x 200 in 26; or 6x400 in 55-57

F-AM 8 miles PM 8 x 150 fast

S-Race, or time trial over 600 or 800m; or 15x400 averaging 61

S-18 mile run at a good pace (1:44:00-5:45+)

Special considerations:

Walker runs all of his miles at "fast" paces."

The Lydiard principle that I most agree with is that you are only as good as your training, and since you can always improve your training, you can always improve your racing. The letsrun genetics experts (excuse makers) will say that you have a genetic limit etc which is just plain bad psychology and defeatist.

How long do you plan to make the 6:00 pace runs when the process is done? Let's say you're thinking of four miles, just as an example. As I said, I've found that getting to four miles (or five or seven or whatever) first and then letting the pace come down works much better than trying to run at a particular pace for a short time and extending that time. You may be different but I think my experience is more common.

train smart wrote:

The Lydiard principle that I most agree with is that you are only as good as your training, and since you can always improve your training, you can always improve your racing. The letsrun genetics experts (excuse makers) will say that you have a genetic limit etc which is just plain bad psychology and defeatist.

How could you not have a genetic limit? It's the point where a line representing your best training intersects with a line representing advancing age. Simple.

You may also not realize that people who know they have a genetic limit still train and pretend they don't.

Every athlete is in denial during their prime years.

I can run 6 or 7 miles quite comfortably at the moment at 5:50 pace or faster if there aren't too many hills. I have done high mileage in the past, and feel that it is indeed beneficial. My premise is that I'm essentially "resetting" my training from the bottom and building up my stamina, footspeed, and endurance.

The "process" you speak of, I hope to kind of go something like this:

1.) Use the early morning jogging as an extra boost to aerobic capacity, and leave it fairly constant.

2.) 100m & 50m sprint reps starting moderate and gradually becoming faster to develop footspeed.

3.) Time trials for lactic power and tolerance

4.) 6:00 pace runs gradually lengthening as I build my base.

M AM Jog PM Stamina Run @ 6:00 m/m

T AM Jog PM Alactic (50-100m) sprint reps w/ long recovery

W AM jog PM Long sprint (400-100) Time trial or intervals (50s, 100s, or 200s w/ short recovery)

Th AM Jog PM Stamina Run @ 6:00 m/m

F PM Alactic (50-100m) sprint reps w/ long recovery

Sa AM jog PM Long sprint (400-100) Time trial or intervals (50s, 100s, or 200s w/ short recovery)

Su Rest or AM Jog

Your plan is very good for getting to a race in a shorter period of time with all necessary systems working at 90 percent.

Many people try to do really basic base work and then fall behind in the other necessary aspects and get to their first races not even close to race shape.

I like time trials myself. You don't have to go for a PR . Just run a distance around your key distance and let the time improve while putting the same effort in.

Many people go into races with very limited knowledge as to how that distance actually feels when run close to all out.

MrGambinus wrote:

You can reach 90% of your potential just off the 'easy miles' and strides. People underrate it.

If you can't run a 55, then 1:59 is 100% out of range.

If you start working on top speed 2 to 3 months before racing, you're gambling that you'll be able to adapt your form and economy at faster paces soon enough to race well, assuming you reach your speed goal at all. Whereas the result of volume training is very predictable. You never know how long it will take to develop the speed, so it's foolish not to do it early.

Nick Symmonds babbled about needing off-season speed work in his post-finals interview at NC's last year. But he will probably give up and move to 1500 instead.

What's the rationale for "resetting?"

PS,

I keep forgetting to write this so I'll add it now while it's on my mind. In your first proposed schedule you have two days listed where you plan to run either hard intervals or an 800 time trial. If you do time trials, don't limit yourself to doing them at 800. Do some at 600 and at 1000 as well, even a 1200 wouldn't be a bad idea. Lydiard had the idea of "bracketing" your race distance, going under it at a harder pace and then building strength by going beyond it. Loads of potentially goo 800s bite the dust in the last 100-200 meters. The longer trials will help combat that.

Yes, I meant in that schedule I put up to say 400-1000m rather than 400-100m for long sprint time trials.

SMJO wrote:

train smart wrote:

The Lydiard principle that I most agree with is that you are only as good as your training, and since you can always improve your training, you can always improve your racing. The letsrun genetics experts (excuse makers) will say that you have a genetic limit etc which is just plain bad psychology and defeatist.

How could you not have a genetic limit? It's the point where a line representing your best training intersects with a line representing advancing age. Simple.

You may also not realize that people who know they have a genetic limit still train and pretend they don't.

Every athlete is in denial during their prime years.

Yes, you're a regular letsrun genetics expert.

train smart wrote:

SMJO wrote:

How could you not have a genetic limit? It's the point where a line representing your best training intersects with a line representing advancing age. Simple.

You may also not realize that people who know they have a genetic limit still train and pretend they don't.

Every athlete is in denial during their prime years.

Yes, you're a regular letsrun genetics expert.

Whether or not he's a "regular letsrun genetic expert," there's no denying genetics plays a big role in how good you get in a sport. and no this isnt just broscience, many other sports physiologists have said this as well. Just google it, youll see what we mean.

train smart wrote:

Yes, you're a regular letsrun genetics expert.

Thank you. I try to help.

It's like I often ask people who think that there is no genetic limit to how long one can live. Can a person "train" to become immortal?

What do you guys think about this workout from this morning for a base workout?

01/28: 8.85 miles in 61:20 in the snow; fartlek on football field of 20X10s/2’ (avg. 3:50 pace/70m by GPS, ~80yds on football field) & 1 strong cruise mile in 5:49 & 10:00 jog cd

HRE wrote:

Generally if your goal is to run faster on longer runs you'll get better results getting to your desired distance and then allowing yourself to run faster as the greater distance makes you fitter. I tried what you're planning once and it went nowhere but was able to drop my typical training pace from 7:30-8:00 to around 6:00 in about three years by concentrating on building up the miles first.

Can you explain this HRE?

I would think that if you dropped your regular "aerobic" pace that much then that would translate into faster 800m times since the 800m is around half aerobic?

While we are at it.

Say the OP's 5k pace is 5:45 per mile, then what range should general aerobic/Lydiard runs be in? (I would guess about 7:00-7:45 mpm)

400.800 runner type wrote:

HRE wrote:

Generally if your goal is to run faster on longer runs you'll get better results getting to your desired distance and then allowing yourself to run faster as the greater distance makes you fitter. I tried what you're planning once and it went nowhere but was able to drop my typical training pace from 7:30-8:00 to around 6:00 in about three years by concentrating on building up the miles first.

Can you explain this HRE?

I would think that if you dropped your regular "aerobic" pace that much then that would translate into faster 800m times since the 800m is around half aerobic?

While we are at it.

Say the OP's 5k pace is 5:45 per mile, then what range should general aerobic/Lydiard runs be in? (I would guess about 7:00-7:45 mpm)

FWIW: 8k PR is 27:32 from last spring; I just turned 21 but haven't raced very much, and didn't run more than 1 season of HS track as a distance runner at a school that didn't practice track, I just went to the meets and ran 4:52/10:50 off of basketball training as a junior. I was a good sprinter and quite uscled as a kid (12.09 100 FAT at age 15) but 3 years of intense basketball and then a 2 year obsession with "just running" post-HS, up to 100 mpw, left me at age 19 at my 8th grade weight (and I wasn't even all that heavy then) and unable to break 16 seconds in the 100m due to the atrophy to my fast twitch muscles. I'm slowly getting some speed back redirecting my focus, and the coach at my university is going to give me a chance to walk on XC (almost guaranteed) and track (a long shot that will require me running either 4:29 or 1:59 minimum).

wncmtnrnr wrote:

I was a good sprinter and quite uscled as a kid (12.09 100 FAT at age 15) but 3 years of intense basketball and then a 2 year obsession with "just running" post-HS, up to 100 mpw, left me at age 19 at my 8th grade weight (and I wasn't even all that heavy then) and unable to break 16 seconds in the 100m due to the atrophy to my fast twitch muscles. I'm slowly getting some speed back redirecting my focus,.

On this note, my "take-off" is so poor that from a dead start, my 50m splits for 200m are very much like earlier today: 9.5, 6.5, 7.0, 6.7.

And no: this example was from 200 repeats not all-out sprints. It just serves to show how long it takes me to build up speed.