Too Hot,
How many marathons have you run? What’s your PR?
Thanks in advance.
Too Hot,
How many marathons have you run? What’s your PR?
Thanks in advance.
too hot wrote:
Elixer,
I do not equate pace and effort, in fact anyone who has been here long enough knows that I am adamant about making that distinction. Pace is subject to a number of variables whereas effort is something you have more control over. Where we seem to be splitting hairs over Lydiard is these fractional efforts which in reality are strong aerobic efforts. Again, close to or “around” marathon effort and marathon effort are not exactly the same thing but there is nothing exact about Lydiard’s world anyway.
I've been reading this thread for years, I used to post my training here 4-5 years ago under the handle Netwerk Errer with Stone, Pewow, Garbage, Pikachu, Matthias, Hereford and Bonham just to be clear, they probably don't remember me as I was only around for a short period but I never stopped reading. I know you push the effort over pace narrative and I agree with you but I was just pointing out where there was clear misinterpretation and conflicting points imo that I taught I backed up well with my points.
I know it may seem like we are splitting hairs but I don't agree with that especially when posting in a thread where other people who haven't yet invested the same amount of time we have into interpretating Lydiards structure, I think there has to clear definitions and clarity in what he was trying to do as we understand it in this scenario.
After the periodisation model, The modulation of these phases is the next most important part of Lydiards training and to look at it as just all high-end aerobic is a very black and white interpretation. I like to look at the aerobic conditioning phase as sub-threshold training because we know it's quantifiable as maximum steady state is the ceiling and you have a ladder going up to it which symbolises modulation of intensity within the room with each rung signifying a different intensity. This along with variance of running distance signified the modulation of the conditioning phase. You are underestimating the importance of this variation which is a key part of not just Lydiard but every other high level coach out there.
Lydiard was a very exacting person, after all he was the guy who took peaking to the next level. The difference is that how his exacting principles differ from many more modern coaches. Designating an effort level to a run only creates an illusion of freedom to a person who looks at training through the lens of pace as Lydiard himself would say that effort is a much more exacting measure of training stimulus than pace or a pre-written workout. It's when you say comments like that which make me think that you haven't fully managed to get your head around that concept yet.
Elixir,
Many thanks for the wise words. It is great to see someone posting actual content of substance regarding Lydiard.
Elixer,
Clear definitions in the way we seek for them in modern training systems is the antithesis of Lydiard. If we’re going to teach Lydiard we should do so with authenticity. Lydiard was indeed an exacting person but not “exact” in a quantifiable or rigid sense. The freedom it provides is one of its strengths. It is not an illusion. It empowers runners to allow the paces to come to them.
Elixer wrote:
Canova is the king of specificity.
That's funny, I've never seen Patrick Sang's name spelled that way before.
Just kidding. I've been enjoying the conversation between too hot and yourself and appreciate the perspectives on both sides.
Picking up on a technical point: it's not really clear exactly how we should interpret the fractional efforts (1/2, 3/4, etc.) that Lydiard refers to in his sample schedules, or how much weight we should give them. According to Tinman, Lydiard borrowed the terminology of fractional effort from Gosta Holmer (of fartlek fame). For Holmer, as I understand it, each level of fractional effort corresponded to specific percentages of the maximal performance possible at a given distance on a specific day. Confusingly, Holmer seems to have equated each fractional step to a 2.5% difference in pace, so that 7/8 effort would be 95% of max, 3/4 effort would be 95%, 1/2 effort would be 92%, and 1/4 effort would be 90%. If you apply this interpretation of fractional effort to Lydiard's base schedule, you get something that is pretty darn demanding, and would probably involve a good deal of running at MP or faster. And going by my personal definition of marathon effort (running at the fast end of easy), I would venture to say that pretty much all of the running would be at marathon effort or harder.
According to HRE (and others), however, the stuff about fractions of effort was something that Lydiard put into his book at the publisher's insistence. It doesn't really reflect the way that Lydiard actually coached, and it doesn't really reflect the way his athletes actually trained. With that in mind, HRE suggests that the fractions of effort in Lydiard's schedule are best interpreted in very general terms: pretty hard, pretty easy, the balance in between. In the big picture, the idea is to put in a steady effort, both in the sense that the effort should be sustained and in the sense that it should be sustainable. (If HRE happens to be following the thread, as I know he sometimes does, I hope he will let us know if I'm misrepresenting his perspective.)
For reference, here is the thread that I'm getting the Tinman and HRE perspectives from:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3320486Going by what HRE says, I would respectfully suggest that treating the fractional efforts in Lydiard's schedules as if they provided specific "data points" is something of a wild goose chase. Now, sure, that's partly Lydiard's own fault - he wrote the book, after all. And I wouldn't say it's the only fault in his book: I don't think I would go to Lydiard for a scientific explanation of the physiology of training, and for reasons similar to those Elixir has talked about, I personally prefer an approach that relies less heavily on linear periodization. But at a certain point, I think you have to look to Lydiard (or Daniels, or Canova, or whoever) for the things that they can/do give you, and not for the things that they can't or don't. While I don't agree with too hot about everything, I do agree with him that Lydiard can offer a fundamentally valuable lesson in the importance of training by feel/effort.
Now of course, Lydiard is not the only person who teaches this lesson. For example, while there's a tendency to think about Canova as Mr. Scientifically Precise Paces, the vast majority of training in his system is primarily guided by "internal load," in other words perceived effort. Essentially, this principle applies to everything with the exception of the primary workouts in the specific period. In fact, Canova says at one point that "internal load" is the "very mean" (that is, the essential instrument) of training.
Or on the level of philosophy, consider this quote from Canova: "Personally, I prefer not to use track, because european and american runners lost the "instinct" of running, changing something that is natural in mathematic: running at Threshold with cardio, going on track for controlling always the speed, measuring every thing for being sure. Running is something else, and for running fast you must follow your sensations, and for following you must know what your sensations mean. Task of a coach is to follow the athletes for teaching them to "hear" and to "feel" themselves, and to arrange their training with big goals, leaving a good space to personal interpretations."
Or, on similar lines, but with a related emphasis: "I think that American coaches are too much scientific, and sometime lose the ability to watch inside the reality. Personally, I never met a scientist that was also good coach, because they want to use the athlete in function of training, not training in function of the athletes. Don't forget that the most important problem to solve is to make easy what is difficult, and for this goal we need to be very simple, natural in our approach, bringing our athletes to train more without too much pressure. That's the reason because too much hard training is a mistake : because athletics become a continuous examination, no more a pleasure. You can train hard preserving the ability of enjoying your training, instead too many times athletes think that training is a "must", and lose their nervous energies in fighting in training."
Now Canova certainly does employ a high degree of scientific knowledge and mathematic precision in conceiving and communicating his own methods. And I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily an either/or proposition - ideally it would be all tea and crumpets, in Coach Jeff's formulation. But if someone like Canova is saying that he sees too much measurement and not enough instinct, maybe that's a perspective to pay attention to.
As something of a footnote, Coach Jeff and others may be interested in this recent article on the value of perceived effort as a measure of training load:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2356056/most-valuable-training-data-surprisingly-simple?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=onsiteshareGFMAH: How long did it take you to write that!?:)jk
Great post! There's a lot of info in there, just when I thought I was going to get an early night haha
I agree great post GFMH and reading what you quoted increases my appreciation of Canova
I’ll chime in one last time to piggyback on GFMAH’s masterful post with regards to Canova and internal load.
For those of us that follow a more polarized model of training, there is quite a variety in approaches when it comes to our non-workout days. I think part of this is personal preference, part of this is internal load, part of this is sustainability and therefore personal happiness.
Yes, I pretty much follow Canova’s system of funneling workouts in both the Fundamental and Specific Phases, but my non-workout days are all over the place by choice and life circumstance. I probably COULD maintain 7:30-8:00/mi pace for every non-workout day if I treated myself as an automaton, and probably could even lower that if I worked at it over time. But that internal load would weigh on me, it wouldn’t be sustainable for pleasure purposes, and I would miss out on the joy of choosing to run with my fiancée or some newer runners that I coach that naturally run at a much slower internal load.
I like running VERY easy and slow sometimes. For me it is an easy way to add volume, to add time on my feet, to do more work than I may not have the motivation or incentive to do on my own. Others are different. RRR is so self-motivated that he can handle an internal load much more demanding than I can anymore.
My point is this. GFMAH masterfully just presented to us a way to marry different presentations of running philosophies by focusing on their similarities and also drawing on their individual strengths that come from their differences. My recommendation is to any runner out there that has run by feel but wants to experiment with some of Canova’s specific workouts, it doesn’t mean you have to abandon your long held habits.
Nor does a Daniels disciple who has held himself or herself to a daily easy run pace according to a chart versus feel need to think he or she is abandoning the spirit of Daniels if they start choosing to leave their watch at home on non workout days.
There is plenty of value to each of these different philosophies we identify ourselves with, and there is also plenty of room to meet in the middle and fine common ground.
When it comes down to it, if there was ever a monster group run with everybody who posts in this thread, I am pretty sure we could find a common pace that would fit everybody for that group run, from RunnersFix to JamestheAmateur.
And to me that’s what makes training beautiful, as Canova states, the simplicity of it.
Those are some fantastic posts. My first year running all I did was mileage (0-101 peak...75ish avg for 3 peak months) mostly easy, sometimes a progression. Sometimes steady. And races some. Ran a 1:24:3x 13 months after I started running off of that regimen. It worked pretty well I would say and was low stress, built a nice base, and melted off the 215lbs I started with. Would recommend that approach to a new runner and I believe it to be lydiard esque. Hell wore no watch for any run for 10 months .. anyways I digress.
Wanted to say great posting and this is why This thread is so fantastic.
There are some low hanging fruit type jokes I could make ... but will let em slide this am!
16:44 for the R3/Pappy show this morning. Good conditions ..and good competition at the right paces..to lay down a decent time.
Pap is a helluva coach w his rebuild of RRR.
I hate to be a downer in the middle of this good discussion, but I pulled my calf this morning. Not sure I fully understand the calf's anatomy, but I think it's in the medial side of the left soleus. The pain is a bit low, starting just below the gastrocnemius and radiating down about 2 inches. I'm somewhat worried it's a tear in the Achilles, but the pain isn't severe and I have full range of motion. Just seems a little low and it is the same side that I've dealt with chronic Achilles tendinopathy.
So. I have a physio session already on the books for Monday for post-wreck issues, is there something to be gained by seeing someone today? From what I've read, there's not much to do immediately for a calf strain besides ice and compression. Check and check.
Whoa RRR. Balling.
JB - I don’t see any need for urgency. I’ve had moderate strains of both calfs. The pain was higher up in the meat of the calf and dull in nature. I did not know I had injured them until a few days later. With some anti-inflammatories I was able to get through my goal races without having to take too much downtime. But they are pretty slow to heal. Mine both took about 6-8 weeks to completely heal even with regular rolling, icing, compression, and massages.
Jewbacca Don't ice or compress, you want to avoid anything that can cause stiffness or interrupt the pain response. Icing only gives pain relief and delays the process of inflammation which is your body's alarm response to get working on the repair of damaged tissues. If you are not in acute pain, you do not want to do do that and even if you were, you would be better off taking something which doesn't interrupt the inflamation cycle like vicodin.
PRICE and/or RICE protocols are outdated and counterproductive in treating injuries because ice dulls the inflamation cycle and protection and compression cause the damaged tissues to stiffen or atrophy in the case of longer term injuries. Stiffness is the enemy as it impacts on blood circulation getting to the tissues and helping the healing process(much like when you are stiff after a race and you go out and do a recovery run which loosens out all the tissues and gets your circulation moving properly again).
What you want to do is what is called the ARITA protocol which stands for Active Recovery Is The Answer. Keep the muscles gently active through by dynamically contracting the muscles in the calf and ankle. Don't dig into the pain zone but just flirt with it to make sure you ward off any stiffness and keep the blood flowing.
JB - Hot bath w/ epsom salts as well.
RRR - I have nothing but respect for Pappy, and he has done an excellent job, but you have rebuilt yourself. It all starts with you, my friend. Congrats on a well-deserved run. I knew you had it in you.
Yes! I could not agree more. Best of health to you, jewbacca.
Way to go RRR!
Hope the calf heals up jewbacca.
Jewbacca - I am a believer in keeping it moving as it heals. Tend to run through all to most niggles ... I do ice on occasion tho. And hot baths sometimes when super stiff.
Hope it heals fast for you.
RRR - congrats on another PR
Jewbacca - bummer about the calf. I think elixirs advice is all good except maybe the vicodin. I'm not a medical doctor or pharmacist though.
Good race for me this morning. 16:29 which is my second fastest 5k ever and fastest 5k in 7 years. I was kind of getting down on myself that my training hasn't been going great and I haven't had a good race this fall so I let the leaders get 7 or 8 seconds on me in the first mile. I actually thought to myself at the mile mark "at least need to beat RRRs time". Caught second place about 2k and we ran the rest of the race step for step. He beat me by 2min over 15k but I kept feeling better and better until the last k when it got tough. He kept surging ahead of me but I got around him the last 150 and beat him by 1sec. First ran 16:10.
Splits: 5:27, 10:44 (5:17), 16:00 (5:16), 16:29
First mile has a false flat uphill but definitely not worth 10 seconds. Hopefully racing the same two guys next weekend.
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?
Live Now - Official 2024 Track Fest at Oxy Live Discussion Thread
MSU men > NAU by 1 point even though Nico Young and Colin Sahlman tripled!!
NCAA D1 Conference Outdoor Championships Live Results and Discussion Thread
Start Lists for the Men's and Women's Mile/1500 at Pre are up
Do Australians consider their culture closer to Britain's or America's?
Trans Dude On Pace To Break Girls 200 & 400 records & lead team to State 6A Oregon title