posted Apr-18-2007 03:27 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 07:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
Just what is the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 effort in Lydiard's schedules? I have a feeling asking this is like asking "What is Buddha nature?," but I'll reveal myself as a dolt anyway.

Greg[/B]

---

Your "full effort" is all out full effort. You don't want to do that in training all the time. You cut that effort in half so it's pretty manageable; that's 1/2 effort. You make it really easy and that would be 1/4 effort. You're still pushing fairly hard but still under control, that would be 3/4 effort. Don't try to figure them out in "seconds or minutes per mile" pace; go by how you feel.

If you want more of my attention, you need to get a lot more "provocative" than that! ;o)

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 07:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Nobby,

The purpose of the Lydiard hill phase, is to develop power, build achilles, tendons, ligaments, flexibility, ankle strength, calves, train the fast twitch muscle fibers, by springing/bounding etc... Power is very important.

Hill repeats develops power using your own body as resistance. In other words, the slower up the hill, the more resistance you create.

2 questions if I may:

1) Should hill repeats be attacked ferociously other than bounding and springing? This would catapult the runner in the anaerobic zone.

2) Is hill repeats a prelude to anaerobic training? What I am asking is was hill repeats intended to build up the body before the faster anaerobic stuff?

---

Hill training can be whatever the way you want that to be. The original approach Lydiard had is as a transition. You want to re-introduce power and flexibility in your strides and the way he did his hill circuit was a very effective way to do so.

His explanation of hill exercise has "evolved" quite a bit along the way and, as DaveD had pointed out, I don't even like the way he (Arthur) made it even more complicated. Lydiard liked to talk about "bounding" and "springing" but these exercises, as explained by him in the later years, are actually quite a bit different from what he meant by "springing" in his original exercise. Sure, you use your "spring" to go up the hill with a slow forward momentum; but the original movement wasn't as up-and-down as it turned out to be later on.

In short, as I said earlier, hill training can be whatever you want it to be. In his lecture in the later years, he started to talk about hill training last as a speed development. Exercises like "bounding" or "springing" shown at our website, www.lydiardfoundation.org (sorry for the advertisement!), are excellent workouts for speed development. But the truth is; you really don't want to introduce them too early in the program, like right after the marathon conditioning. They can be way too demanding. Everything would have to be a gradual transition. As a transition, what we now call "Steep Hill Running" would be best. This is what I call the original Lydiard hill exercise. You apply a "snap" or a "spring" in your ankles with a slow forward momentum with high knee action. You use a steep and relatively long hill (300~800m). If you need power (like for running a marathon), you might want to stay here. If you are interested in shorter, faster races like a mile or 800, you move on to bounding and/or springing.

After this so-called "transition" hill training, you can go two ways with hills: (1) move on to bounding/springing as a speed development, or (2) introduce a different type of hill exercise which is basically just run up the hill hard, not necessarily fast, but hard at least at first. Gradually (again), you move onto a shorter, less steep hill and increase the speed of running. The reason why you keep forward momentum slow (as a transition) is to minimize the chance of this exercise becoming too highly anaerobic. Somebody else asked; yes, hill training is the initial introduction, or preparation for, anaerobic training. Like everything else, the transition would have to be gradual. Going up the hill would introduce some anaerobic component plus with the original hill circuit, there was some wind-sprints at the bottom of the hill as the initial introduction to repeats (we never suddenly introduce a completely new movement and energy system like some people think). If you get up on the hill, after months of easy aerobic running, and start blasting up the hill, they would be way too highly anaerobic and chance of injury would be way too high. You ease into it and, if you want to stay on the hill, gradually move into running faster on the hill.

Now, hill training as speed development; reportedly, Pekka Vasala of Finland stayed on doing hill bounding (as later explained by Arthur as "bounding") until something like only 2 weeks before the Olympic 1500m race in Munich. It didn't hurt him much! Apparently he loved to do hill bounding.

One final note on hill training; hill training as a transition as laid out by Lydiard originally is basically a form of plyometric exercise. You don't need to do it on the hill if you have to. Susanne Weigene of Norway does some drills on a short hill during the transition phase instead of a form of bounding.

Okay, I lied. One more thing. Many of today's runners/coaches don't necessarily use hill training as a transition and some people might claim they are not Lydiard. If you're used to running fast, meaning if you run your conditioning plenty fast or you run lots of hill anyways or, like most of today's runners who compete almost year-around, don't need to "gradually ease into the next phase".

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 08:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Now, hill training as speed development; reportedly, Pekka Vasala of Finland stayed on doing hill bounding (as later explained by Arthur as "bounding") until something like only 2 weeks before the Olympic 1500m race in Munich. It didn't hurt him much! Apparently he loved to do hill bounding.

---

I believe hill repeats should be continued atleast once a week after the hill phase. Just like the base conditioning phase where the aerobic engine needs to be maintained til race day, hill repeats should be maintained also via 'springing' or 'steep hill snaps'. Finally someone I can converse with on this issue that's been bugging me.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 09:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
I believe hill repeats should be continued atleast once a week after the hill phase. Just like the base conditioning phase where the aerobic engine needs to be maintained til race day, hill repeats should be maintained also via 'springing' or 'steep hill snaps'. Finally someone I can converse with on this issue that's been bugging me.

---

I wouldn't necessarily say you "should" continue hill training but certainly woudn't hurt. It depends on your own strengths and weaknesses. For example, I just can't run fast now and am just thinking I should do more hills... On the other hand, if your main objective is to run fast on track (or something flat), then you should perhaps concentrate more on running fast on flat.

I tell you what I think most people overlook; that's downhill running. If you CAN do it and do it well, you should definitely include downhill leg-speed work like Lydiard's original hill circuit. One of the best ways to develop fine leg-speed. You see, a part of development of fine speed is leg-speed, it's a nerve thing. You need to practice overcoming muscular viscosity and downhill striding, or fast striding with tail wind, is probably the best way(s) to work on it.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 10:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Nobby

---

I am going to try my luck one more time.

Lydiard clearly stated that it took 4-5 weeks to develop your anaerobic pathway to its capacity. Then I look at the coordination phase+sharpening phase and both added together equals 10 weeks.

My question is if I may:

Isn't 10 weeks going to force the athlete to over extend his/her peak ?

Thank you for anything you may provide. This one has been bugging me also.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
I am going to try my luck one more time.

Lydiard clearly stated that it took 4-5 weeks to develop your anaerobic pathway to its capacity. Then I look at the coordination phase+sharpening phase and both added together equals 10 weeks.

My question is if I may:

Isn't 10 weeks going to force the athlete to over extend his/her peak ?

Thank you for anything you may provide. This one has been bugging me also.

---

Everybody is his/her own individual. Some may take less than 10 weeks to peak; others may take longer. But the point is; Lydiard thought "it takes about 4 weeks to develop your anaerobic capacity to maximum" through his what he called "a green finger approach" (educated guess?). If he or his athletes did more than that, his conditioning started to go down. So forst 4 weeks of 10-week "track schedule" phase, you would do lots of interval type of training to develop your anaerobic capacity to maximum. Once again, depending on the individual and background of training, age, stage of long term development, this length would vary. I would start out with minimum and see what happenes and I'll tell you why. As you said, doing time trials and races are also anaerobic in nature. This is why Lydiard always said that it's always better to be under-trained with anaerobic than over-trained because if it's not developed fully, you'll have the opportunity later anyways.

In the second half of the track schedule, you'll concentrate more on speed development, which is different from anaerobic training in Lydiard's dictionary; and coordination of training. Speed development should be more or less short sharp repeats less in volume so you don't really dip into anaerobic (alactate, if you want to use a fancy term). Even for time trial, Lydiard would tell you not to sprint in the end so you don't get too far into anaerobic. Sometimes people try to match the required time for the trial and they push too fard in the end to meet that time. That would not help your outcome. The time would have to be realistic. I see a lot of people "predict" times based on NOTHING. If you conduct your workouts based on such bogus reason, you may possibly actually hurting your chance of performing well later on than helping. This is what we call "you're leaving your best run on the training track."

Anaerobic capacity, according to Lydiard, if you don't maintain that type of workout, you'll lose that development. But if you do it too much, you'll push your conditioning down. So that's when we do sharpeners. You go on a track and sprint 50m and float 50m. Do them like 20 times (2k). Short and sharp so you won't really develop too much lactic acid in your system but enough to stimulate anaerobic metabolism.

How long for an individual to peak varies a lot. You need to figure out when you hit the wall in terms of anaerobic development; how long to sharpen yourself to the maximum speed develpment; and how long to coordinate. It's always better to take a longer time to develop fine speed; in other words, if you take 2 days between interval type anaerobic training instead of 1, you may want to consider doing it longer than 4 weeks (although practically, particularly if you're still developing athlete, I would keep it maximum 4 weeks but do anaerobic training less in volume, twice or even once a week). Same with fine speed development. You should not try to test your full speed until you fully develop your fine speed. Speed development should always be controlled. It is really like a jigsaw puzzle; you develop good knee lift; good ankle snap; good leg turn-over; etc... And finally you put them all together.

From what I see, and Lydiard always said this as well; majority of "runners" in this country don't develop their speed. I was at the track yesterday with my girl and we saw about 30 people seemingly doing that famous "Yasso 800m repeats". I talked to Bart before about this; let's face it, if you're a 4-hour marathon runner and doing these Yasso 800 in 4-minute (8-minute pace), that's not really a speed development. Most of them were chatting, laughing (nothing wrong with that), spreading 3 lanes wide (we had to dodge them all over), swinging their arms side ways and knock-knee and all... I honestly feel, even those 4-hour marathon runners would benefit doing things like 200m repeats with plenty of recovery but do them strongly, fast with good technique, good arm swing, knee lift, straight spine, etc. But they don't. They are perfectly happy with 4-hour or 4:30 marathon...which is fine. But, as Lydiard stated, "that's why millions and millions of people running in this country; they don't produce very many Olympic middle distance champions." I received an e-mail from a 17-year-old kid who wants to be good. He said he wants to be a 2:20 marathon runner and thinking about training 90 miles a week this summer and run 5k races. First of all, I told him not to limit himself to be a 2:20 marathoner (why not 2:10 or faster!?). Then I told him to run some 800 and 1500m races. Too many young kids in this country just jump into 5k and 10k races and become a road runner. If more kids start running (and we adults should provide such opportunity to them instead of 30000 peolpe crawling Komen 5k "fun run") middle distance races and hone their speed more all the while keeping up their long endurance run of up to 2-hours; 5 years from now, we'll start seeing a lot more Deenas and Mebs. But instead, in this country, when they won medals, they just jumped up and down overjoyed and said, "Hey, we're on the right track!" We are NOWHERE near the right track. Deena and Meb, as an individual WERE on the right track. I still don't see ANY system or program going in this country yet.

Actually, you know what (I know I'm digressing...sort of)? I don't necessarily disagree with that RT article. Too many young kids are thinking too much about mileage. Of course, that should NOT be the elite's attitude; nor long aerobic work should never be overlooked. But young kids should spend a lot more time on track, not doing repeats; but working on their speed and technique. It seems in this country we have either mileage junkies or interval slaves. Lydiard method is all about the BALANCE. The ratio of the balance varies during the course of development and individual and individual. But too much of one thing will not make you a complete runner.

I should put all these mumbo jumbo together and write a book! ;o)

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
I wouldn't necessarily say you "should" continue hill training but certainly woudn't hurt. It depends on your own strengths and weaknesses. For example, I just can't run fast now and am just thinking I should do more hills... On the other hand, if your main objective is to run fast on track (or something flat), then you should perhaps concentrate more on running fast on flat.
I tell you what I think most people overlook; that's downhill running. If you CAN do it and do it well, you should definitely include downhill leg-speed work like Lydiard's original hill circuit. One of the best ways to develop fine leg-speed. You see, a part of development of fine speed is leg-speed, it's a nerve thing. You need to practice overcoming muscular viscosity and downhill striding, or fast striding with tail wind, is probably the best way(s) to work on it.

---

Some good points. I'd like to add/emphasize: If you build up your neuromuscular condition correctly with something like hill training, then after that phase normal running on the roads should more than maintain it. If you can't maintain it and have to keep doing it once a week, you didn't do the work properly. We don't need an activity (physical movements) that we're not going to use during normal training and racing. (For example, doing a lot of push ups won't directly help our running.)

Downhill running is one of the best ways to teach the body to run faster because it trains our neurological components so well (there are single nerve fibers going to each muscle fiber). It's sometimes difficult to get this type of training without over stressing the muscle fiber components. So downhill running (properly) is very low stress, keeps the heart rate lower, and doesn't overtax the muscles.

However, it's important to not overstride (which many people do), so the hill should not be too steep, avoid using thick shoes (which make you land on your heel), and not go much beyond race pace. And, you can do this workout during your base building period because, with the right course, you won't go anaerobic.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:

If more kids start running (and we adults should provide such opportunity to them instead of 30000 peolpe crawling Komen 5k "fun run") middle distance races and hone their speed more all the while keeping up their long endurance run of up to 2-hours; 5 years from now, we'll start seeing a lot more Deenas and Mebs. But instead, in this country, when they won medals, they just jumped up and down overjoyed and said, "Hey, we're on the right track!" We are NOWHERE near the right track. Deena and Meb, as an individual WERE on the right track. I still don't see ANY system or program going in this country yet.

Actually, you know what (I know I'm digressing...sort of)? I don't necessarily disagree with that RT article. Too many young kids are thinking too much about mileage. Of course, that should NOT be the elite's attitude; nor long aerobic work should never be overlooked. But young kids should spend a lot more time on track, not doing repeats; but working on their speed and technique. It seems in this country we have either mileage junkies or interval slaves. Lydiard method is all about the BALANCE. The ratio of the balance varies during the course of development and individual and individual. But too much of one thing will not make you a complete runner.

I should put all these mumbo jumbo together and write a book! ;o)

---

The Hanson's project has a balance between speed and mileage, and
it is reflected in the results of the U.S. half mary championship.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
... Too many young kids are thinking too much about mileage. Of course, that should NOT be the elite's attitude; nor long aerobic work should never be overlooked. But young kids should spend a lot more time on track, not doing repeats; but working on their speed and technique. It seems in this country we have either mileage junkies or interval slaves. Lydiard method is all about the BALANCE. The ratio of the balance varies during the course of development and individual and individual. But too much of one thing will not make you a complete runner.

---

Balance is something too many runners ignore. I think most focus on either high milage or too much speed, some both (and these are two of the common reasons for overtraining, which is epidemic). Building the aerobic system is often the deficiency.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 11:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Some good points. I'd like to add/emphasize: If you build up your neuromuscular condition correctly with something like hill training, then after that phase normal running on the roads should more than maintain it. If you can't maintain it and have to keep doing it once a week, you didn't do the work properly. We don't need an activity (physical movements) that we're not going to use during normal training and racing. (For example, doing a lot of push ups won't directly help our running.)

Downhill running is one of the best ways to teach the body to run faster because it trains our neurological components so well (there are single nerve fibers going to each muscle fiber). It's sometimes difficult to get this type of training without over stressing the muscle fiber components. So downhill running (properly) is very low stress, keeps the heart rate lower, and doesn't overtax the muscles.

However, it's important to not overstride (which many people do), so the hill should not be too steep, avoid using thick shoes (which make you land on your heel), and not go much beyond race pace. And, you can do this workout during your base building period because, with the right course, you won't go anaerobic.

---

Thanks, Dave, for reinforcement. The way you put it, I was reading it thinking, "Wow, I was actually right!?" In regards to uphill runinng, before 1976 Montreal Olympics, reportedly Dick Quax said, of Rod Dixon, "He did too much hill running and not enough flat course running." Of course, when I reminded of him, Quackie denied ever saying that. But that actually made sense to me.

In regards to downhill running, you're absolutely correct and I guess I cut a corner. The downhill section should be such that you can actually lean into the hill and run with your body (spine) perpendicular (or slightly forward) to the ground. If you have to lean backward, it's too steep. Absolutely correct about aboiding thick-heeled shoes. That slapping would cause shin splint. You should try to employ mid-foot landing. We do run down quite fast though. My main emphasis on downhill, if we can find the right hill, is quickness of leg turn-over. This particular hill we use; there's a big steep dip and then it levels off. We just jog down the steep part and then speed up the bottom part where it levels off FAST.

Peter Snell used to run the original circuit downhill section (800m) in 1:50. Amby Burfoot couldn't believe it so I conveyed his disbelief. "Well, it was downhill..." was Peter's reply quite matter-of-factly. It is a learnt skill. You may need some getting used to.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 12:06 PM               

Sure, some people don't have time for recovery etc etc but that isn't what this discussion is about. That's a matter of priorities, this is about what works and doesn't. I just had a conversation with a guy training for a HM that wants to take 20min off his time over the next year. I began talking with him about a good way to do it, and he revealed that he runs 2X per week and doesn't foresee adding more than 1 day. My reply was that he needed to align his goal with his ability to follow through toward it. If you want to be your best, do what you need to do to be your best. If you have restrictions that prevent that effort fine, but be honest about it with both yourself and someone you're asking for advice. I gave the guy advice on how to get the most out of his 3X per week schedule, but suggested he recognize and accept that his goal may be unrealistic given the contraints he put on his training...no judgement there, just realism.

100 mpw is just a number. Volume is important but just as important is what you do with it. Do you take risks pounding the roads that much? Well, yes. I'm currently having some training issues and I have little doubt that my training over that last 3-4 years has a bit part to do with it. However, that same training that caused the problems enabled a decidedly mediocre 34+min college 10K runner to realize the lifelong dream of breaking 31, so I have no regrets. Risk comes with reward, and as long as I end up on the positive end of the coin more often than not I'll continue.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Too many young kids in this country just jump into 5k and 10k races and become a road runner. If more kids start running middle distance races and hone their speed more all the while keeping up their long endurance run of up to 2-hours; 5 years from now, we'll start seeing a lot more Deenas and Mebs.

---

I'll tell you why. Track coaches(high school) push anaerobic training too much and not enough long runs. Eventually when race day comes around, the kids fail. Then upon further review by the track coach, obviously not enough speed work was prescribed. So on to another dosage of speed work, more anaerobic intervals to the point of vomit and/or injury. Eventually the kids get burned out and quit. IMPROPER knowledge on the part of the coach. You see this at high school and you see this at the college/university level. Coaches want instant results or it's their job.

The young Kenyan thats been running 20 miles per day on rolling hills back in Kenya gets a scholarship to an American university. This young Kenyan gets introduced to speed work and anaerobic intervals instantly upon arrival. He quickly develops into a superstar at the university and wins every x-country race, 5k and 10k races. The coach is proud, gets a big bonus.

I know the huge aerobic engine was the main reason for the success of this young Kenyan. But most people don't see it that way. People only want to know what the Kenyan did in the last 4 weeks leading up to his/her races. The answer is interval and some speed work. Then all track coaches at every other university says, "WOW speed work and intervals really do work. I'm going to prescribe even more intervals now."

And the vicious cycle is repeated.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 04:05 PM               

This was pre-internet, maybe kids today know a little better, I hope??

IP: Logged

posted Apr-19-2007 04:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
100 mpw is just a number. Volume is important but just as important is what you do with it. Do you take risks pounding the roads that much? Well, yes. I'm currently having some training issues and I have little doubt that my training over that last 3-4 years has a bit part to do with it. However, that same training that caused the problems enabled a decidedly mediocre 34+min college 10K runner to realize the lifelong dream of breaking 31, so I have no regrets. Risk comes with reward, and as long as I end up on the positive end of the coin more often than not I'll continue.

---

Abso-f'in-lutely!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 09:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
I am going to try my luck one more time.

Lydiard clearly stated that it took 4-5 weeks to develop your anaerobic pathway to its capacity. Then I look at the coordination phase+sharpening phase and both added together equals 10 weeks.

My question is if I may:

Isn't 10 weeks going to force the athlete to over extend his/her peak ?

Thank you for anything you may provide. This one has been bugging me also.

---

There was this something that was bugging me last night... I thought I forgot to say something. I was writing an advice to this young kid this morning and it hit me. This is it.

So you'll do anaerobic type repetitions/interval training for 4 weeks (or whatever you decide to do); then next 4 weeks or so, you'll continue with time trials and developmental races. Then your real competitions begin... During this Coordination Phase, Lydiard's runners were doing time trials twice a week. For a 5k man, that's running 5k race (or at 3/4 or 7/8 effort) a couple of times a week (they sometimes did 1500 o r 3000, sometimes 10k). Yes, that's an aweful lot of fast running. So is twice or three times a week of repetitions prior to that.

The point is; they can handle such tough regimen for a couple of months and keep improving BECAUSE they did marathon conditioning. Lydiard's marathon conditioning, running 100 miles a week for 10 weeks is ONLY a prelude to these race specific training. I had an experience of chopping almost 2 minutes off my 5k time trial within 6 weeks. I may or may not have been able to continue a bir more if I had even better conditioning behind me (that was too steep of an increase anyways though...). The more race specific training, and racing itself, you can do, the better your performance will be (up to the point). And the better you're conditioned, the more your body can handle. Simple as that. Marathon conditioninng is simply a prerequisit.

Talking to Barry Magee, he told me, as one of the problems of decline of NZ athletics, that not too many of todays runners are doing the kind of marathon conditioning and hill training that really made the Snells and the Halbergs. Magee said that they were simply "a bunch of strongest men in the world." Lydiard used to always say that, without first conditioning yourself, "track training is not worth the paper it's written on." But that's what many of todays athletes are doing; skipping straight to the track schedule (and if you were me in high school, even skipping tough workouts as well ;o)). When I talked to Chris Pilone, the coach of the gold medlist and the silver medalist at Athen Olympics triathlon, he said Hamish Carter (the gold medalist) does best when he has a single season instead of double seasons (per year). I asked him how they construct the program for single seasson, he simply said, "We double the conditioning (from 10 weeks to 20)."

In a way, debating whether low mileage approach is better or not is almost debating whether it's a good idea to go backwards (in performance progression) or not.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 09:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Lydiard used to always say that, without first conditioning yourself, "track training is not worth the paper it's written on."

---

Soooooooooooooooo true.

Good post.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 09:45 AM               

Still no follow-up? What a conspicuous absence.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
Fred;

I once saw a "typical week" of Scheibler's training in an article on him prior to the Toronto Waterfront HM which he ran a few years ago, I believe he was pointing for the NYC marathon at the time. It was very much like what I've seen from Gabriele Rosa's runners, the easy days were 60 min am and pm, there was a Sunday 35k long run and 2 afternoon track sessions during the week, one was 20x1 min fast, one min jog and the other was 6x2000m with 2-3 min rest.

I have no idea what he was doing when he was in Japan or training for track events.

---

Thanks Dan.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 04:48 PM               

Overtraining is the most common reason for injuries of all types, and diminishing performance. What's interesting is that for many, the first indication of overtraining is a jump in performance. That usually makes the runner excited, thinking the program is working so I'll keep doing it (and other runners see what you're doing and...hey...he's really improved...let's follow his schedule...).

Two of the most common reasons for overtraining are too high milage, and too much speed.

There are some great training ideas presented here, but the key is to match them to your needs. Measuring as many things as possible will help keep you on track (such as a treadmill test that measures RQ vs. HR, VO2max, etc.). That's why I like using a heart monitor. If used effectively it can help you get more out of training without overtraining. It's a way to individualize your training and racing.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 05:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I really don't like the title of this thread (The Truth About Milage). There is no truth.

---

Pretty well.

Much of the controversy in this thread (early part) is around Richard's nonsensical ramblings and pseudo-science. His use the word 'genetics' as though it's a key he's found and unlocked, yet he shows no way of measuring it except through the same training/response mechanisms coaches have used for decades. So coaches (and runners) have already known for years what Richard believes he's the only one to have stumbled on.

It's great the several have been able to turn this into a thread of useful information and I'm hoping all will continue to contribute, not just here but elsewhere.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 06:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Overtraining is the most common reason for injuries of all types, and diminishing performance.

---

Non sense. The main reason why there are so many injuries is running technique(SLOPPY), the cushion shoes(motion control/stability/thick heel padding), and the fast pace track interval workouts for people with little or no base. That is what is happening.

People are petrified to raise their HR past 150 bpm, they think they are going to explode. I seriously doubt they can over-train with this retarded outlook.

Look at the med tent. It's full of injuries. Nothing to do with over-training. Most people run 3-4x per week and they're really happy if they cover 25 miles in a week. Too much mileage? I don't think so.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
It's great the several have been able to turn this into a thread of useful information and I'm hoping all will continue to contribute, not just here but elsewhere.

---

Amen. This is easily the most graceful reorientation of a thread in the history of Cool Running, if not the entire World Wide Web.

As for those awaiting a response from Richard, don't bother. He's simply not even equipped to respond to anything Nobby et al. have introduced. Even when he's plainly wrong, he'll keep arguing as long as people engage him. But Nobby's not interested in silencing sheer noise -- to his credit he just ignores it -- and so we now have, ironically, an extremely informative thread about reaching toward peak performance using traditional, intelligently allocated high-volume trianing.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-20-2007 08:41 PM               

I think the same can be said of "over-training." I totally agree with what DaveD in terms of people abusing themselves. But at the same time, I'm also totally in sync with Abadabajev when it comes to the main causes of injuries. But you see, 25 miles a week CAN be overtraining if the individual is not properly prepared for it.

What I told this young runner this morning was, basically in a nutshell, "Do what you can do today." Snell didn't just get out one day and started running 20X400m in 60 seconds. First time he went around Waitakere 22-mile course (with a 3-mile long uphill), it took him 3.5 hours and he broke down in tears. Lydaird used to always say "Don't worry about what training Olympic champions are doing. Look what they WERE doing 10 years ago when they started out." I mentioned earlier that Lasse Viren, when he started out training with his coach at the age of 19, he was running 50KM a week. He then built on to it. Lydiard said, "Keep within your limitations and you'll improve." Bite off what you can chew and swallow first. The rate of improvement varies from individual to individual so I won't necessarily promote "10% rule" (besides the fact it's too mathmatic) but the increase in duration and intensity would have to be gradual as well as taylored to the individual.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 05:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Renowned athletic coach in Eugene, OR, Dick Brown told me years ago that, they used to have a coaching gethering in Eugene. They had Dellinger, Luis de Oliveila, Heinonnen, Bob Sevene, Mike Manly... Who else was in that area? But anyways, they would pick one topic a week and discuss. He said, one week, they discussed a definition of a "long run". With some of the top athletic coaches in the country, after an hour of discussion, they couldn't agree upon what a "long run" means! I guess that is because a long run is in a context of an individual.

I think the same can be said of "over-training." I totally agree with what DaveD in terms of people abusing themselves. But at the same time, I'm also totally in sync with Abadabajev when it comes to the main causes of injuries. But you see, 25 miles a week CAN be overtraining if the individual is not properly prepared for it.

What I told this young runner this morning was, basically in a nutshell, "Do what you can do today." Snell didn't just get out one day and started running 20X400m in 60 seconds. First time he went around Waitakere 22-mile course (with a 3-mile long uphill), it took him 3.5 hours and he broke down in tears. Lydaird used to always say "Don't worry about what training Olympic champions are doing. Look what they WERE doing 10 years ago when they started out." I mentioned earlier that Lasse Viren, when he started out training with his coach at the age of 19, he was running 50KM a week. He then built on to it. Lydiard said, "Keep within your limitations and you'll improve." Bite off what you can chew and swallow first. The rate of improvement varies from individual to individual so I won't necessarily promote "10% rule" (besides the fact it's too mathmatic) but the increase in duration and intensity would have to be gradual as well as taylored to the individual.

---

Nobby,

Thanks for the great stuff thusfar.

I have a couple thoughts and was hoping you'd have some replies: I think what Aba (and initially AndyHass said) is not about hitting 100 mpw as a kind of physical benchmark, but more of a "mindset" if you will. In other words, people being reluctant to find and redefine their "limits". In other words, to really "go for it" and see what happens--Drive if you will.

High mileage, to my mind, is one representation (among many) of that drive, although I'm not entirely certain if mileage is the best measure. Rather, what's your thought about running on time, as opposed to mileage? Didn't Lydiard advocate this? It seems obvious that Sell's 150 mpw would in no way be equal to a 2:45 marathoner's 150 mpw in terms of simple time on feet. To complicate matters further, as Andy pointed out, what are you *doing* during those 150 weeks?

It would seem to me mileage is important when trying to hit a certain pace on workout (race, time trial, tempo, etc.). But in your general, overall aerobic efforts, wouldn't the runner be better served by running for a given duration over a specific mileage--after all, the training effect is to based on the time the athlete operates in a particular training zone. Moreover, if the athlete covers 5 miles on month, and six weeks later, can cover 6.25 miles in the same time w/ the same effort, then that tells the athlete/coach that appropriate progress is occuring.

Crap: the baby is starting to cry. More later, sorry about the truncated message!

IP: Logged