Running easy to get faster?
Running easy to get faster?
not the same but all variations on a similar theme
Lydiard's base building absolutely did not consist of long slow distance. His steady state runs were to be at maximum aerobic pace which is only slightly slower than threshold pace (and faster than marathon pace). Neither Hadd nor MAF intends for you to run this fast in the base phase.
no not quite wrote:
Lydiard's base building absolutely did not consist of long slow distance. His steady state runs were to be at maximum aerobic pace which is only slightly slower than threshold pace (and faster than marathon pace). Neither Hadd nor MAF intends for you to run this fast in the base phase.
Hadd added some 1h runs at 170HR for John (what that his name?) after a while. That was supposed to be a threshold run if I remember correctly.
MAF doesn't intend for you to run fast, but his heart rate formula often means that you are.
Lydiard's base training is not "slightly" slower than lactate threshold. It's slower than marathon pace. Still not easy, but not maximum aerobic pace either. Also, when you talk about Lydiard base, I assume you mean Run to the Top. He didn't advocate the exact same training throughout the course of his long career.
HADD is very, very slow base training. It can be a useful approach for certain runners, but it's not optimal. It's also based on incorrect physiology. His toothpaste metaphor for training is appealing, but demonstrably false. For what it's worth, HADD's base is what he's known for, but that was just one aspect of his approach. By all accounts he was a very good coach, even if he was wrong about a few things.
800 dude wrote:HADD is very, very slow base training.This is nonsense. You didn't understand what he wrote if this is the takeaway message you got. His base training involved a lot of running, most of which was very easy (probably easier than most north American runners would be inclined to run, but hardly unusual most other places I've been), with a couple of strong runs and a long run most weeks.
From my understanding, Hadd and Lydiard had very similar base building approaches. MAF is something of outlier because it is ALL slow running.
But Hadd included two moderate effort runs (for him about 10-15 bpm above easy running, so not the 170 the poster above mentioned) of an hour in length. He had a weekly long run of 90 to 120 minutes, and those would also include some moderate paced running as the training progressed.
To me that is very similar to Lydiards twice weekly runs of 3/4 effort and the weekly long run. Lydiard did include some fartlek/strides, which I am surprised to never see Hadd mention.
itdepends wrote:
From my understanding, Hadd and Lydiard had very similar base building approaches. MAF is something of outlier because it is ALL slow running.
But Hadd included two moderate effort runs (for him about 10-15 bpm above easy running, so not the 170 the poster above mentioned) of an hour in length. He had a weekly long run of 90 to 120 minutes, and those would also include some moderate paced running as the training progressed.
To me that is very similar to Lydiards twice weekly runs of 3/4 effort and the weekly long run. Lydiard did include some fartlek/strides, which I am surprised to never see Hadd mention.
I suspect you only read Hadd's 3 sample weeks for 60mpw, 69mpw and 80+mpw, because he did actually introduce sessions at 170HR for Joe, if you re-read it. It was just not in the original plan, but something that was introduced later when Hadd felt like joe's LT had increased.
He also introduced a session he calls 200-fartlek, which is 200 on at 5k pace and 200 off in around the time it takes to run the "on" 200s + 15s.
And his long runs could go up to 3h, not just 2, as you can see in the original plan for the 80+ mile weeks.
Here are some excerpts from his original posts:
hadd:
Only on wk13 was Joe allowed to run at 165-170 HR and this replaced his 160 sessions (because we believed his LT had now moved up from 160 HR). That week (Tue) he ran a measured 10m @ 168 av and managed 58.28 and found it "easy" (indicating therefore low lactate and a pace under/slower than LT). This was NOT a race effort. He ran it again that week (Fri) and managed 58.56 (166 HRav) and found it again, "easy".
Since this intensity was now a regular part of the schedule, in wk14 (Tue) Joe ran the same 10m at HRav 171 in 57.58 and found it "very easy, legs fresh, could have kept going no problem".
hadd:
On wk 8, we introduced a session simply designed to to get Joe used to moving faster biomechanically, without incurring high lactate. I call this 200/200 or 200-fartlek. It is done on a track and involves 200m @ approx 5k pace followed by 200m easy and continues without stopping for 25 laps (10,000m). The point is NOT to do the overall 10k in the fastest possible time (by slowing up the fast bits and speeding up the slow bits), but to maintain a healthy differential of approx 15 secs or more between the fast/slow 200s. Something like 40s and 55secs or 43s/60s.
Joe ran this on weeks 9 (38s/55s – 38.40 for the 10k); wk10 (37s/52s – 37.18 for 10k) and wk12 (37s/51s – 36.53 for 10k). This session replaced one of the 160 HR runs on those weeks, the rest of the week remained unchanged.
He also mentioned strides in other posts here on letsrun, they just didn't make it to the famous text that goes around, which was also originally a series of letsrun posts that someone compiled into a .doc file.
If I remember correctly he recommended to someone asking that they do strides on tuesday and friday (his "work" days) before the run as part of the warmup.
follow the gourd! wrote:
800 dude wrote:HADD is very, very slow base training.
This is nonsense. You didn't understand what he wrote if this is the takeaway message you got. His base training involved a lot of running, most of which was very easy (probably easier than most north American runners would be inclined to run, but hardly unusual most other places I've been), with a couple of strong runs and a long run most weeks.
The fact that no one can agree on even what these different methodologies shows that they must be explained very poorly in their respective books or journals. It seems a series of bullet point statements from the source materials would resolve this.
And yea, the theme is run more.
Here you go:
Hadd wrote:
Here's a thing!
You know I get folks to run long at controlled HRs and generally get them to have 2 "uptempo" days per week when they run at higher HRs (anything from 80-90% HRmax depending on where they are in training)?
Also do the following (and especially if you are a more-ST kind of runner). BEFORE each of those two uptempo sessions (usually Tue/Fri), run 6-8 x 100m "strides" with 100m jog recovery in ~45 secs before you go into the main session.
Now it is VITAL that you control the pace of those strides, so these are NOT EVER to be run as fast as possible (AFAP). You want to run them at ~1500m pace for the 100m and float the 100m following in 45 secs. DO NOT WALK the recovery float. We often do these are stride the straights, jog the bends, to complete the warm-up.
Don't know what 1500m pace is? Here's the rule of thumb.
It is 10-12 secs/lap (per 400m) faster than your current 10k pace. So if 10k pace is 1:30/lap (37:30 for 10k), then 1500m pace is NO FASTER THAN 90-12 = 78s or 1:18/lap or 4:52/1500m. (it might be a coupla secs either way, but don't sweat the small stuff).
If you have a current 1500m PR and it is wayyy faster than 12 secs/lap quicker than 10k pace (because your 10k pace is poor right now), don't worry, just go with the 12/secs lap faster than 10k pace rule for now. When 10k pace improves, so will the 100m "stride" pace. In this circumstance, do not run the 100s at your current 1500m pace.
So, if you 10k PB is 37:30, you would run 6-8 x 100m in 19-20 secs (78 secs/lap divided by 4) with 100m jog recovery in ~45 secs (never slower).
Doing them faster than this is NOT better, so don't even bother. Just do them as advised and then get into your main aerobic HR-controlled session.
from this thread:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2668169Thanks for that post on the strides, DietBacon. I thought it strange that the big Hadd document didn't really address strides at all.
And I have read that document many times. I do know about the 200/200 workouts as well as the faster HR runs of 10 miles (slowly raising the HR of those runs). But those come quite a few weeks later in the training, and as this question was more about the base of things, I didn't include them in my answer. Sorry for the confusion, or feeling like I was calling you out.
But really, they do seem to fit better in the idea of base. Thinking more about Hadd, especially his approach for the marathon, it is kind of like one huuuuge block of base training as he really takes his time with the athlete and very slowly tweaks their training.
Maffetone is all base training there is nothing else I've seen him write about.
To mention him in the same sentence as Lydiard is a joke
WhatTheWHo wrote:
Running easy to get faster?
It really depends on what you'd define as essentially the same. I imagine each of these guys would tell you that his base training is different than the other two's are and we can dig through each approach and find differences. Maffetone, e.g., relies heavily on heart rates and uses a monitor. Lydiard did not. But you can boil the base phase of all these approaches down to "run a lot of comfortable miles to develop your endurance."
The principles of Lydiard are geared around peak years and actually doing your best. Making it happen.
The other two suppose the athlete might live to be 200 and improve for half of that. Hoping it will happen eventually.
I think he might’ve done it this way cause joe hadn’t run seriously for years. If he’d been coming from another season when he’d already done fast work and was in shape maybe it’d have been different.
As for the strides I think it’s just cause that document was originally a bunch of letsrun posts, not something meat to be a full training guide or anything, so we can’t expect it to be as thorough as a book.