Correction : I mean I would be lying if I tell it do not makes me feel good.
Correction : I mean I would be lying if I tell it do not makes me feel good.
400 repeats at 100-105? Now why didn't I think of that?
6:30-6:45 per mile and I'd be grinning at the finish line and for me it would be a comeback of Epic Proportions & be MOST satisfying.
THANK YOU.
Kim: I will take your advice on pushing the envelope on that long run back to 90:00.
Modest goals I have for now, but to pop 7's would be most satisfying.
(hmmm...does that sound vaguely Yoda-ish?)
johnny:
I don't think Arthur even had an access himself to a 20km long uphill. But I don't think he would object (though not all the time). However, one advice is to make sure you include downhill section as well. You need both.
Okay, Yoda. When you pop 7's, make sure you give ME a credit! But seriously, not so fast though. Like I said, that would be the quick way to do it (a quick-fix). Instead of just jumping into the 400m reps; make sure you take a gradual approach. After all these years, 100 sec. 400 would feel like all-out sprint (been there, done that!).
* Do 200 at 50~52 sec. instead of 400 in 100.
* If you try 400, don't time them at first; get used to them first.
* And don't even set the numbers at first. Repeat till you "hit the wall". If you get stuffed after, say, 5 repeats, that's fine. Pack it up and jog home. In a week or two, you'll be doing 7 or 8 or 10.
Hill phase of the Lydiard program would take care of this "transition". Even the repetitions, they should follow a certain pattern of gradual increase in numbers, distance and/or intensity.
Nobby-One
this thread needs to be saved somehow, like put on a disc or something. Far too much good information on here to be lost.
Understanding you, I am.
Yep, downhill is the problem although I hear that there are actually some treadmills today that have a downhill capability. That long uphill run really works out the hams and quads. on the treadmill, you have complete control of the hills, of course. i'm thinking about doing my long 2 hour plus Sunday run on the treadmill as an uphill run and see what happens. it will be quite a challenge.
Second the motion for saving this thread. Wejo, could we perhaps get this thing archived or something? Maybe added to the "Good Threads" thread?
I have had a couple treadmills that go downhill. One was customo made and the other we just put the back support up on 10X10 wooden blocks then with a carpenter's level determined what grade the TM had to be set on to make it level (I think it was about 8 or 10%). Several fairly fast miles at 8% down hill and I couldn't recover the quads for a full week. I imagine working into it gradually and you could get some very beneficial training, especially for Boston. On another note, when I was coaching Ken Martin he did all his long (2hour) runs on his TM at 2% (upgrade not down) and 10MPH and he was at altitude. That was leadiing up to a 2nd place finish at NY City in a mid 2:09 time. I have also done VO2 studies with some runners running on a TM for 2 hours at recent marathon race pace, just to see if economy deteriorated over time -- it did not. I also once ran a marathon during which a friend drove up alongside me every half hour (where we had previously measured and marked the ground)and I put on the head gear and nose clip and had expired air samples collected to see how that went during an actual marathon race. I probably have more good unpublished data on runners than anyone around -- gotta retire some day and get after these publications.
CraigMac wrote:
Second the motion for saving this thread. Wejo, could we perhaps get this thing archived or something? Maybe added to the "Good Threads" thread?
Just make sure you delete the contributions of those who respectfully disagreed with the experts and got there nuts kicked = A trend through the whole 900 pages as I see it.
>>Dr. Exag = Skuj. Do a search if you doubt.<<
Nope.
I AM a Lydiardite....
I think before I registered the name 'Dr. Exag' Skuj posted as Dr. Exag.
Skuj = many psuedonyms, but not mine!
Tinman 2-3% anaerobic? what is that supposed to mean? I presume you mean going slightly too far past the fat burning limit which is sometimes refered to as the Aerobic threshold?
But I have no time for the words aerobic and anaerobic, they just confuse people. We need some new terminology to tie in what both modern researchers and inspired coaches agree upon.
In a 1977 Runner's World, Arthur answered a question from someone who'd had back surgery and gave the guy a schedule.
Here it is:
First 8 weeks:
M- 30-45 min aerobic run
Tu 45-60 min aerobic run (henceforth all runs will be "aerobic run" unless otherwise noted)
W- 30-45 min
Th 45-60
F rest or 30 min
Sa. 30-45 min
Su. 60-90 min
Next 6 weeks:
M- 6x200 meters relaxed striding
Tu 45-60 min
W. 5,000 meter time trial
Th 45-60 min
Fr. rest or 30 min
Sa. 5,000 meter time trial
Su. 60-90 min
Subsequent 6 weeks:
Mo. 8x200 meters fast relaxed running
Tu. 45-60 min
W. 5,000 meter time trial
Th. 30-45 minute easy fartlek running
Fr. Rest or 30 min
Sa. 10,000 meter time trial
Su. 60-90 minute aerobic
Next week:
M- 8x100 meter windsprints every 200 meters
Tu. 45 min.
W. 3,000 meter time trial
Th. 4x200 meters relaxed striding
F rest or 30 min.
Sa. 3,000 meter time trial
Su. 60 min.
Final week:
M. 6-8x100 meters fast relaxed striding
Tu. 1500 meter time trial
W. 45 minutes
Th. 30 min.
Fr. Rest or 30min.
Sa. race
Su. 60 min. aerobic
Whether you can get to sub 7:00 or not, I'll echo Nobby. Who knows? But you certainly won't get there if you don't try, and if you knew, wouldn't all the fun be gone?
I don't think that anyone who "respectfully" disagreed got anything kicked. But there have been people who get on here and just seem like they want to complain or who seem to want to do nothing but question Arthur's ideas without really contributing any of their own and some of us have gotten a bit short with them.
It's particularly irritating when someone creates multiple anonymous identities, essentially repeats the same questions or arguments in slightly different forms and still seems dissatisified.
Those of us who knew Arthur and have posted here have put a good bit of thought into some of our posts and I don't think any of us object to that sort of "respectful" disagreement, particularly if the disagreement is a bit thought out and shows some indication that the poster has actually considered what we've said. But someone who just says, essentially, "I think you're wrong" and not much more could do with a nice, respectful, kick somewhere or other.
Great post, Dr. Daniels, and exactly how I look at alot of what I've read over the years regarding the training of distance runners. Be it your text from "Running Formula" or my notes from hearing you speak at a clinic or the many books of Lydiard's that I have read, they're definitely guidelines, i.e. my example earlier of adjusting the pace or recovery or number of reps depending on how an athlete is responding before, during or after a workout. I just don't understand the mindset of "I've got to finish these reps because this is what I set out to do even though I'm falling furhter and further off the pace with each one." It might help with developing mental toughness but I think being inflexible and not being able to adjust workouts on the fly is detrimental to long term develoipment of the athlete. Just my opinion.
Dr. Exag. wrote:
I think before I registered the name 'Dr. Exag' Skuj posted as Dr. Exag.
Skuj = many psuedonyms, but not mine!
so Skuj is/was Dr. Exag. man, that guy takes everybody's handle.
Eamil me and I will alleviate some confusion
Tinman 2-3% anaerobic? what is that supposed to mean? I presume you mean going slightly too far past the fat burning limit which is sometimes refered to as the Aerobic threshold?
But I have no time for the words aerobic and anaerobic, they just confuse people. We need some new terminology to tie in what both modern researchers and inspired coaches agree upon.[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like aeorbic and anaerobic, just think of it in terms of fuel utlization. You have a limited supply of glycogen and glucose in your body available to run. At marathon pace you normally burn some fatty acids too, as fuel. There is a desirable balance between the two.
If you train improperly, using plenty of fast reps, your body learns to burn sugars, glycogen and glucose, faster. As a result, when you run a marathon race you burn your sugars too fast and you run out of power before you reach the finish line.
Once you have drained your sugars too low, your body says "Hey there, I got keep a little bit around to run my nervous system - which only uses sugars - so I'll slow you down, buddy, and make you use fats as a fuel source." ATP production from burning fats is lower in amount per unit time. Thus, power output drops and you slow way down in the last few miles of the marathon.
If you train wisely for the marahton, using limited numbers of faster reps, you won't teach your body to burn sugars fast and you won't "bonk." Simple as that! Tinman
'Email'