Here's the phrase I hear a lot; Holly Cow!
No, I wouldn't say 10X100m strides will cause full peakage as much as, say, 50/50 sharpeners; but it would help a hell of a lot more than, say, 18-miler.
Here's the phrase I hear a lot; Holly Cow!
No, I wouldn't say 10X100m strides will cause full peakage as much as, say, 50/50 sharpeners; but it would help a hell of a lot more than, say, 18-miler.
>>>The notion that we should spend tons of time on base, then "sharpen the pencil" with speed has always confounded me.<<<
Base training is a plus for durability fators; lasting a track season & ability to train harder, I think.
CGP:
"Base training is a plus for durability fators; lasting a track season & ability to train harder..." BINGO!
LETSRUN RULES!!! OK???
Wonderful discussion here. Aaaahh....I'm in such a good mood, after just finishing 26min jog + strides + 45sec hard + 15min jog in glorious west coast sunshine again. Yeeeehaaaaw! (Sorry mikeinboston.)
I guess "speed development" is what I'm getting at here. A few weeks ago, 1:48 600m was a challenge for me. Now it's easier. And with continued training, it will hopefully become a cruise in the weeks to come. And what brings this change in effort level? Is it all about "base", or can we do "speed development".
Let's say E wants to do 10x400m in 70sec just prior to his Big Races. Would 10x400m in 80sec make sense a few weeks or months before? Would 80sec be a challenge at first? Or should he just jump into 70sec? Even if 80sec feels good, should he do 70sec, or "cruise" the 80s, in order to "build" carefully towards the 70s? Or would 10x400m in 80sec be silly, or a waste of time?
These questions have been sort of answered in recent posts, but I just want to expand / talk more about it. Is it not sensible to spend many many weeks building carefully and gradually towards peak speed sessions by doing all of the "grunt work", but also, "speedwork" in steps, too?
I want to run 800m in sub 2:08 this summer. I believe that a good training session will be 600m in 1:35, feeling good! So, I do all the conditioning and strides and shorter runs and longer tempos etc etc etc....but also 600m runs carefully building towards 1:35. No?
So assuming CGP and I are correct in assuming base-building training in fact helps you to be more durable, continue track season (or any season for that matter) and enable you to perform more training; then wouldn't it make sense to build a good solid base first? You can engage yourself into the 8 weeks of competitive season with 12 races instead of 4 weeks with 5 races; hence perhaps better chance to get more efficient to the race and even improve a bit more? Or you can perform 25X400 and still feeling strong instead of feeling absolutely dreadful and tired after 10X400?
I personally think one of the most significant statement Lydiard had made is this: "It is first necessary to understand that, while the object of training is to develop your anaerobic capacity to exercise, this can only be done in relation to your oxygen uptake level and capacity to exercise aerobically." Okay, how many of you remember where this statement was made? Or did it just completely slipped?
Skuj:
I really thought we could say good-by to this thread for a while... You really put this back alive and kicking!
>>Let's say E wants to do 10x400m in 70sec just prior to his Big Races. Would 10x400m in 80sec make sense a few weeks or months before? Would 80sec be a challenge at first? Or should he just jump into 70sec? Even if 80sec feels good, should he do 70sec, or "cruise" the 80s, in order to "build" carefully towards the 70s? Or would 10x400m in 80sec be silly, or a waste of time?<<
You walked right into this! I know this doesn't answer all your question but now I've got to go out for my run in the 20F condition! Why time them? Why not just do the "effort"? You start to time yourself right from the beginning; as you said, you're still relatively slow because you haven't developed speed yet; you check your first 400 in 84 seconds and breathing heavy; now you're either depressed as hell or mad as hell and try to hit the next 400 in 76 even though it's "unnecessary". Or...what's your third option?
I got that speed 'how you feel' concept.
Let me throw another thought to think while coaching this theoritcal E...okay the times are very real so it's me.
I happen to be fast over shorter distances like very short sprints to 400s...in relation to my (in)ability to run say 10k.
So IF I was to time them by someone's magic schedule from Runner's Heaven Magazine, Gawd forbid, I would have made myself go too slow for my ability - I think????
Would I not want to time only race pace work??? Get the feel of race work, later on.
Skuj.,
Debbie Scott laughed when I told her about Pacath guys running 800s and not doing any measurable mileage. She went on to talk about how she ran a minimum of 80 miles per week, supplemented by gym stuff and pool running.
She ran faster 800/1500 times than these men do...who's right. These guys whine insesently about people talkign of the good old days...
Dr. E wrote:
Skuj.,
Debbie Scott laughed when I told her about Pacath guys running 800s and not doing any measurable mileage. She went on to talk about how she ran a minimum of 80 miles per week, supplemented by gym stuff and pool running.
She ran faster 800/1500 times than these men do...who's right. These guys whine insesently about people talkign of the good old days...
EVERYONE ran more miles back in them good ole' days.
When I ran my sub 31 min. around the Seawall, 1979 & '80 I finished like 16th., 20th.? Now if I were or anyone else ran that, they'd possibly win or top 4!
Yup good thread..gotta go and do something outside now.
Back just now, 53:40. Ridiculously slooooww but...nice day.
Maybe those ex. from 'Aston' will be of some great help.
But why shouldn't we "walk and chew gum at the same time?" :) (I do think I know your answer, Nobby, but i ask many questions to further discussion, not because i am completely ignorant of the Lydiard principles!) I mean, I average about 10k per day, and about 8km of that is usually "base". Do my warmup and cooldown jogs, in the way I do them in my unique little program, priovide aerobic conditioning for the daily "quicker stuff" that I do?I think Cabral said that if you ignore something for 10 days, you lose it. And if you lose it, you are not able to contuinually develop it to perfection at the desired time of year. Is cabral the Antilydiard? Hahahahaha.
Nobinski say: "Why time them? Why not just do the "effort"? You start to time yourself right from the beginning; as you said, you're still relatively slow because you haven't developed speed yet; you check your first 400 in 84 seconds and breathing heavy; now you're either depressed as hell or mad as hell and try to hit the next 400 in 76 even though it's "unnecessary". Or...what's your third option?"
Good question!
I like to know that my training and fitness are progressing at the desired rate. I want a sub 16:40 5km in 4 weeks. I need to do a 3200m in training AT that pace in 2 weeks, feeling good! I need to do 2000m at that pace next week, feeling good. I hope the training I do allows for those efforts. If I blow chunks on the 2k next week, or 2400m the week after, then I must take a look at what I thought was going well. So, these are training sessions that "reveal", and are gradual, and are targets, and are simply good training, in my humble and unique opinion, hehehe. The checking of the paces for any of my efforts, be it 10k tempo or 100m speed test, reveals training progression. "Where should I be now? Where am I at?"
E say: "Skuj.,Debbie Scott laughed when I told her about Pacath guys running 800s and not doing any measurable mileage. She went on to talk about how she ran a minimum of 80 miles per week, supplemented by gym stuff and pool running. She ran faster 800/1500 times than these men do...who's right. These guys whine insesently about people talkign of the good old days..."
I dunno! There's been some really good results! Maybe some ARE doing big volumes? Nobody ever answered that Running Week thread, so whoknows, hehehe? Except for "3:42" !!!???
Well this was all last year, but they were anti-mileaging (not anti-Lydiard) but anti mileage...And of course who would I be to argue? So this is where I went - to the top and the top laughed in disdain at these sissy boys.
She was doing 80 miles and she was adamant that one needs to do at least that and guys more. Well she had incredible success didn't she.
Debbie Scott Bowker
800 meters 2:01
1000 Meters 2:38
1500 Meters 4:05
Mile 4:23
2000 Meters 5:39
- after the 1986 Commonwealth Games
(outkicked Zola Budd who had to miss the Games.)
3000 Meters 8:43
5000 meters 15:40
8K 25:48
10K 33:06
Yes, the "steady" parts of your 10km days will give you some aerobic development. But not as much as you'd get from longer days. So from the Lydiard side, you'd be better off having, say a couple of 90-120 minute runs in there and then doing the 10k days. That's sort of in tune with the race week/non race week idea.
As to timing, the Lydiard idea is that you're getting faster by becoming fitter rather than by working harder. If you can improve those interval sessions by maintaining the same leevel of effort as you did for the earlier, slower sessions, you're fine. The trap to avoid is the one where you have a session where you're not in good form and have to push yourself harder than usual in order to get the times your schedule calls for. And again, you can measure progress using time trials.
By the way, what happened to the Lydiard thread at the Pacific athletics, or whatever, board?
>>Whatever happened to the Lydiard thread...<<
Somehow a couple of threads disappeared, they had an issue/malfunction at the junction. Jus tliek LetRun did with this very thread. Remember we lost 10 pages of printable, bindable and sellable dialogue?
I think the kiddies at PacAth are afraid and are interval junkies, but you did manage to bring up a few masters who once ran in Olys and Commonwealths and various internationals.
Have another go...or maybe I'll have another go....
Okay I restarted a new thread on mileage....see if the catfish bite.
I bit
Skuj and Dr. E:
Okay, I have a dirty little secret for you guys; I time (or at least a one point) my repeats! Dun, dun, duhhhhhn! Here’s why: Skuj, as you seem to have noticed, speed comes back quite quickly. Your 600m time would come down from 1:48 to 1:45 to…and you’re expecting it to come down to somewhere around 1:35. You said it felt great to be running as the times come down. Yes, the times would come down fairly quickly. So coming off from conditioning (and hill phase if you choose to do it that way), you’re still not quite tuned and your leg-speed is relatively slow. The times come down quickly. A couple of years ago, I got a bit ambitious and did some ladder repeats—with one fartlek and one time trial of something like 3k once a week each. I would jog down to a near-by dirt track and I did a couple of 200s; a couple of 400s; a couple of 800; u to 1200 if I feel more ambitious; and descend. I was timing them and found out next week that, with no extra effort what-so-ever, my times next week was; I was running 400 in the 200 pace from the week before, 800 in 400 pace, and so one. It’s really fun to see it come down. So why I time them? Because I wanted to make sure that my last rep was almost the same speed as the first—not too much faster or not too much slower. I don’t have any coach who would watch me and time me so I had to do it myself. Because, from years of my experience, I pretty much know, regardless of how pathetically slow in my initial repeats, my time will eventually come down.
If I were a coach, I would jog down to the track, or a park, or a trail or road where my athletes would do their repeats; then I’d time them while they have no idea how fast they’re running. I would be timing them, keeping close eyes on them and how they’re running. If their time is slipping, it’s time to stop them; or even if their time stays relatively even, if they are struggling (putting extra effort to run the same time), stop them. Now I don’t have such competent coach (like myself???) so I have to do it myself. Not the best way to do; but it works fine (though depressing at times…). As you know, a problem with timing them yourself is, as some of you might know the exact feeling; you go on a track, you know EXACTLY how far you’re running—let’s say 400m. You know how fast you want to run the race you’re training for (say, 5000m in 15:36, which is 75 seconds per 400 pace). First track session (or I should say “speed” training session), you’d get up on the track and did repeat 400m. First rep, 82 seconds. So you just simply ripped off your watch because it’s not working properly. You ask your buddy to time you, or borrow his watch; now it’s still no good, your friend can’t even read the watch—of course, his watch is not working properly either! There’s certainly something wrong with all those timings. So the third one you try to run as fast as you can, running your guts out, getting lactic acid up to your ears, swinging your arms ferociously… Now finally you reach 75.8 seconds. Phew, now you can live with this time (hew, hew…); but now your legs are full of lactic acid, there’s no energy to do another one… Now your choice would be either slow them down to 88 seconds; or just pack up and go home dejected. Has this ever happened to you?
Lydiard knew all this. So, being a practical coach, he suggested to just go out on a park or trail; just run down one fast, jog back; run one fast; jog back…when you have had enough, you’re finished. Even then, I’d still time myself. As I used to do, I think I’d posted this somewhere earlier; I used to jog down about 2.5 miles to this residential area where there aren’t too many cars. I’d run down this stretch fast, jog back… It took me, I can’t remember exactly, but let’s say it was about 1:50 or so. I’d time the first one and try to make sure my last one is very close to that time. If the time is slipping, red flag! Even if the time is the same, if I knew I’m pushing extra, red flag!! So, yeah, I timed myself but in this case, I had NO idea how fast I was running; in other words, I had NO idea what “pace” I was running. Later on, I checked the distance to find out roughly how far (it was something like 520m or something). It’s not even accurate still. Now on the second week or second session, I’d change the venue (I had another circuit like 1100m loop) and did it 4 or 5 times. Yes, I timed them but again the distance was never quite known; therefore, I had NO idea what “pace” I was running at. What’s more, now because I changed the venue, I can’t even be competitive with myself from the session earlier. If I knew I was doing around 1:50 the session ago, I’d be sure to try to beat that time!
Again, if I were a coach, I still don’t like my athletes to have a watch on their own to time their run. If they did, they can potentially push the first ¾ really fast and deliberately slow down in the last ¼ to meet the pre-requisite time. Now that’s not quite that good either. So it’s just so much better if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing. Now Skuj, or Dr. E, if you KNOW you want to run a quarter in 80 seconds or 70 seconds or whatever, and if you have had very busy week with family obligation and work stuff and you’re tired. You get on a track and started the first rep and it’s 82 seconds; what would be your reaction for the second round? Would you simply accept that you’re NOT running up to your expectation and maintain 82 seconds; or do you push a bit harder to meet that 80 seconds that you WANTED to run at? Be honest…
Now to Mucus’ argument, if the session is strictly controlled and handled in a very disciplined way, sure, there’s nothing wrong with it. But again, just how many of you had how many experience like I just outlined earlier? (particularly guys!?) Pride is a very tricky thing.
When we talk about “no pre-planned workout”, we don’t mean just anything. Lydiard’s program is a heck of a lot more meticulous and calculating. You know pretty much exactly what you should be doing 3 months down the road. Once again, one of the most important lessons spoken by Lydiard was that “if it takes longer session to achieve the same physiological reaction than others, then you just have to spend more time doing it.” So you see, it’s almost impossible to write down explicitly what one needs to be doing on the interval/repetition days.
CGP:
With all the mega-mileage they were doing back then plus all the non-high tech running shoes they were running in; I'm sure they were getting injured right and left...
With all the nice un-letsrun thread typical people like nice people, am I the only one using such nasty sarcastic tone?