posted Apr-25-2007 12:08 AM               

The whole idea behind Lydiard program was based on his experience when he turned to be a marathon runner that he started running ALL track distance races better; hense the key was in the marathon conditioning. Nakamura one time told me that they would start running marathon first and bring the distance down, then back up again. Running marathon would help you run other distances better because of the strength you gain from running the marathon. I still believe Radcliffe ran her brilliant 10000m because she switched to thte marathon. Same with Shibui and her 30:48. But the same can be true with the other way around. Running shorter distances would also help your marathon performances. Along the way you prepare yourself to run the marathons twice a year, I would strongly suggest you gain experience and "speed" by running shorter distances like 10k and 5k. You can shuffle the program to do so. Again, they will all be "conditioning".

10 mile race at sub-7 pace is not bad at all. But that to me indicates you should be able to push some of your training pace at around 8 or even below. 10 mile race would barely dip into anaerobic; and, in most cases, you can run a portion of weekly mileage fairly close to that pace; at least during the repeats. I had a hard time pushing the entire distance during the training so I would include something like 3/4 mile repeat during the conditioning. I guess you are doing that in a form of fartlek (3 X 10 minutes). I would take another look at your 3-hour runs. Depending on your marathon goal, I wonder if you could actually cut it down to 2-hour runs every other week or 2 out of 3 weeks and try to push the effort a bit instead of staying at 9:30 pace. I would be almost tempted to suggest cycle of 2HR-2:30-3HR cycle and alternate the effort. Naturally, push the pace down to, say, 9 minute or even below for 2HR run. Depending on your other long runs, even down to 1:45 and push the pace down to 8:45? Someone else mentioned earlier; it's what you do with the mileage that you run. At some part of your program, you need to put some effort into it. Be careful, however, to make sure you're building up, not breaking down.

Now in regards to Complex System; yes, as Tinman stated (good to have you on board, Tin. I was just talking to Rengle about you last night! Did you get Ohana Racer? How are they working for you?), Clohessy is a die-hard Lydiard protege. I don't know if Clo and Wardlow developed this Complex System first or Arthur came up with Race-wee/Non-race-week schedules first (Jon Robinson, who was one of the original Arthur's Boys, told me that he used to use that when he started out so I guess it was fairly common in as early as around 1960s); but the point is, again, as Tinman stated, they are both BALANCED program. There's a time to run fast; there's a time to run slow; there's a time to run a lot; there's a time to cut down your mileage. Forget the numbers; forget 100 miles a week or 4 weeks this or 6 weeks that (in fact, this is exactly what I was talking to Peter Snell about last night before I asked him about cholesterol). It's got to be BALANCED. Balance between aerobic and anaerobic; balance between fast and slow; balance between far and short; balance between racing and training....

Of course, runners like Frank Shorter used very similar program. The point here as well is that even they had some sort of rhythm. The pattern was the same year around but they did NOT neglect the fact that they would taper some before major competitions such as Olympics or Commonwealth Games. In fact, one of the coaching team of de Castella, Dick Telford, was somewhat offended when I said that Deek trained the same way week in week out. It's not that simple.

Having said that, it still is quite simple if you only apply common sense. Dick Quax was invited to this running clinic in Australia some years back. He said one of the panel speakers was none other than Ron Clarke. Someone asked him how he trained. He stood up and said, "When I felt good, I ran hard. When I didn't feel good, I didn't run as hard." And he sat down. Well...! Do we really need heart rate monitor to tell you if you're feeling lousy? Do we really need some magazine article to tell you how much you should be running?

That reminds me of this cute story Arthur told me. He said he was invited to this foot doctor's office down in TX. He said he wanted to analyze his runing form. It took him all afternoon to measure his style (which, by the way, was not that pretty!), having him run on the treadmill with light bulbs on his joints; high speed camera, strobo lights and all. "I'll analyze our findings tonight and let you know tomorrow morning,: the man said to him. Next morning, Arthur went back to his office. "Arthur," he said to him proudly, "you're bow-legged!" "Yes, I've known that for the last 40 years," Arthur replied. ;o)

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 12:43 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 12:52 AM               

The one thing he was earlier more exact with but later was not was pace of running. When he worked with higher caliber runners in the 1950s and early 1960s, he could say, "run 10 miles at 3/4ths effort which should be about 5:30 pace for you, Peter, give or take a few seconds depending upon the terrain, the weather, and how you are feeling. Peter, run 20 x 400 yards at 1/2 effort, or about 64-66 seconds, jog a 440 between each one as slow you need to do the reps. If you tire out, for some reason, cut the workout. It isn't worth driving yourself into the ground to do a workout. Races count more!"

Later, Arthur worked with a lot of lower caliber runners and joggers who really weren't able to do the paces regularly as well as the elite guys. Shrewdly, Arthur focuse the lower level runners on "running the miles" and later, "running the minutes." It was logical that he just tell lower level runners to work up to 2 hours of continuous running on the weekend rather than run 22 miles like Halberg, Snell, Davies, Bailey, Philpott or the like. Each was running roughly the same time, but one was covering much less distance.

I think what I am trying to say is that Arthur adjusted to the runners or joggers he was dealing with and that is the real point about smart training. One must be REALISTIC.

*I am out of shape compared to my early 20s, so my pace is far slower. I am 20 years past my prime, almost. I run 9 minutes per mile at the same effort that I once ran 7 minutes per mile "back in the day." It ludicrous for me to run 20 milers every weekend. But covering 15 miles in a long run is about the same kind of overall stress on my body.

So, though many would say that Lydiard was rigid about his training, I disagree. But, I also say he was, in one respect, if you want to take a look at the overall structure of training / preparation he devised. He had an exact method. It wasn't arbitrary. He had figured out what worked and what did not. If you follow the structure of training, you succeed. If you don't, you limit your potential in most cases.

In one's own training, it is important to figure out what is realistic, establish a logical progression, and then adjust to circumstances along the way.

Take care,

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 01:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopak:
Franz Stampfl trained Ralph Doubell, Peter Bourke and Merv Lincoln to run comparable times to Peter Snell. Would you guys care to comment on his methods?

---

Sure. Coach Stampfl was a brilliant man, very knowledgeable and very much driven. I saw a documentary on the man after he got an accident and stuck on a wheelchair. He was coaching the Australian female shotputter, I believe, and, man! What a drive!!! I was very impressed. Lydiard, Cerutty, Squires and Stampfl... Same with Kiyoshi Nakamura... Coaches like that don't come around too often.

Of course, I'm sure you're more interested in his training program vs. that of Lydiard. I don't have any intention of making this thread into Lydiard vs. Stampfl or Iglio or whomever. I really don't think we can just simplify training program as 100MPW vs. intervals. I've read an interview with Stampfl and found some parts very very interesting. He said something about someone he was coaching and said (I don't have the interview in front of me right now) something like this guy would go out and run 15 miles a day, up and down throught the forest during the winter/off season and come back in the spring and start his interval program. I remember thinking, well, that's not very far from Lydiard program. Again, I don't want to start an argument "who started this and that first". But the point is; when you look into it, a good program nails all the necessary ingredients; be it Cerutty's or Bowerman's or Lydiard's. There are some freak runner who may get away with not spending as much time and effort on one or more elements (someone with freakishly high aerobiv capacity may not have to run 100MPW for 10 weeks to get it high).

I was in fact just thinking about writing a column on Bannister vs. Landy. Of course, Iv'e seen some argument about Bannister training something like 25 miles a week, almost exclusively intervals and become the first man to break 4 minutes for the mile. Landy was second. Then they turned around and ran against each other at Empire Games and, of course, Bannister won. "Therefore," someone might "conclude", "interval system is a superior program." But is it? We all remember how distressed Bannister looked after that "Dream Mile" race while Landy was just standing around. Landy ran far more high level mile races around the time, trying to break four minutes. Bannister ran just a few (all brilliant, mind you). To me, bannister beat Landy in Vancouver simply because Bannister was basically faster (as Lydiard always rely on this "basic speed"). I don't give a damn about that famous "Landy turning around to his left" theory. There was NO way Landy would have left or caught Bannister at that point. To say Bannister was a better runner and his training system was superior is like saying, I don't know, Seko was a lousy marathon runner because he didn't win the Olympic marathon (okay, that was a lame comparison but it's late at night here!).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 05:18 AM               

I for one cannot comment on the Clohessy/Wardlaw training so will leave that to others.
What I will do is explain how Arthur told me to tackle the Time Trial situation with some of my Athletes.
Rather than hit the 1/4, 1/2 3/4 situations he suggested I get the Athletes out on a course (not too hilly ... hard to do in this part of NZ !!) that would maybe take 20 to 25 minutes to run with some 'effort'. Not all out.
Once the base line was established then each time they use the course they try and take 5 to 10 seconds off their previous 'effort'. At no stage should this be "raced". The athlete should finish feeling as though they could do a little more.
I use this method quite successfully with younger athletes on a 3k Trail course. An example : I took on a 16 year old 2 years ago. First time he ran the Trial he ran 11 minutes.
Last time he ran it (Late October last year) in 9:20.

An aside on the Time trial aspect > BTW I have told this on the Letsrun thread so apologies.
As many know here I did a lot of running with Bill Baillie. In 1983 he was preparing for the WAVA Champs. He wanted to run the 800/1500 double.
I said I would assist him with his training (It was totally out of season here).
One day he said we were going to do a 1 mile Trial. Would I do the pace making. I said "No problem, What pace do you want ?". He said "Around 70's"
We duly got into the work. At 3 laps (3:33) I felt awful, I was just feeling sorry for myself when Bill tapped me on the Shoulder and said 'Shut it down, I'm shot to pieces" (or words to that affect)
We then went off for a nice, quite easy run.
A little over a week later we tackled it again. This time it was a Breeze.

My point is if the workout is not 'going to plan', bag it and come back another time and do it.
Just because Arthur had scheduled that workout (Yes! Bill was still bouncing ideas off him) he would have been the last person to say "Why did you shut it down". He fully under stood what we were trying to achieve and smashing ourselves into the ground would not have solved the problem.

I just checked my other diary and found that the day we did that Time trial I had given Bill a hand with his Ice Cream run.
We were jumping in and out of the freezer of his truck lifting big Boxes of Ice Cream (Around 10 to 15kg) and taking into Shops.The route we took was from Bill's House to the Track and we must have gone into at least a half a dozen business's.
So a mini weight workout on the way to Training !!

------------------

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 05:52 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 07:44 AM               

I've had similar experiences with my workouts. I work physically and some days are harder then others. If I have an easy day at work sometimes I'll even give tomorrow's workout a try. I've bagged many a workout to do it again way better then I would have the next day. Some would argue that this would make me more likely to bail during a race but that's a whole other thing in my mind.
My coach always tells me that he doesn't know how I'm feeling at the moment so he trusts that I can make the right decision to bag it and give the workout a shot on a better day.
It's so nice to hear from you, HRE, Nobby and Tinman.
Those of you who knew Arthur are doing a good job representing him here and elsewhere. I get the sense from reading your posts both here and on Let's Run that you feel he deserves that. He was an amazing person and I love hearing all the personal accounts you guys have had with him and others who have followed his training programs. It's especially nice to read your posts here on this board which tends to be a little less hostile then the Let's Run board.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 08:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Greg:

The whole idea behind Lydiard program was based on his experience when he turned to be a marathon runner that he started running ALL track distance races better; hense the key was in the marathon conditioning. Nakamura one time told me that they would start running marathon first and bring the distance down, then back up again. Running marathon would help you run other distances better because of the strength you gain from running the marathon. I still believe Radcliffe ran her brilliant 10000m because she switched to thte marathon. Same with Shibui and her 30:48. But the same can be true with the other way around. Running shorter distances would also help your marathon performances. Along the way you prepare yourself to run the marathons twice a year, I would strongly suggest you gain experience and "speed" by running shorter distances like 10k and 5k. You can shuffle the program to do so. Again, they will all be "conditioning".

10 mile race at sub-7 pace is not bad at all. But that to me indicates you should be able to push some of your training pace at around 8 or even below. 10 mile race would barely dip into anaerobic; and, in most cases, you can run a portion of weekly mileage fairly close to that pace; at least during the repeats. I had a hard time pushing the entire distance during the training so I would include something like 3/4 mile repeat during the conditioning. I guess you are doing that in a form of fartlek (3 X 10 minutes). I would take another look at your 3-hour runs. Depending on your marathon goal, I wonder if you could actually cut it down to 2-hour runs every other week or 2 out of 3 weeks and try to push the effort a bit instead of staying at 9:30 pace. I would be almost tempted to suggest cycle of 2HR-2:30-3HR cycle and alternate the effort. Naturally, push the pace down to, say, 9 minute or even below for 2HR run. Depending on your other long runs, even down to 1:45 and push the pace down to 8:45? Someone else mentioned earlier; it's what you do with the mileage that you run. At some part of your program, you need to put some effort into it. Be careful, however, to make sure you're building up, not breaking down.

Now in regards to Complex System; yes, as Tinman stated (good to have you on board, Tin. I was just talking to Rengle about you last night! Did you get Ohana Racer? How are they working for you?), Clohessy is a die-hard Lydiard protege. I don't know if Clo and Wardlow developed this Complex System first or Arthur came up with Race-wee/Non-race-week schedules first (Jon Robinson, who was one of the original Arthur's Boys, told me that he used to use that when he started out so I guess it was fairly common in as early as around 1960s); but the point is, again, as Tinman stated, they are both BALANCED program. There's a time to run fast; there's a time to run slow; there's a time to run a lot; there's a time to cut down your mileage. Forget the numbers; forget 100 miles a week or 4 weeks this or 6 weeks that (in fact, this is exactly what I was talking to Peter Snell about last night before I asked him about cholesterol). It's got to be BALANCED. Balance between aerobic and anaerobic; balance between fast and slow; balance between far and short; balance between racing and training....

Of course, runners like Frank Shorter used very similar program. The point here as well is that even they had some sort of rhythm. The pattern was the same year around but they did NOT neglect the fact that they would taper some before major competitions such as Olympics or Commonwealth Games. In fact, one of the coaching team of de Castella, Dick Telford, was somewhat offended when I said that Deek trained the same way week in week out. It's not that simple.

Having said that, it still is quite simple if you only apply common sense. Dick Quax was invited to this running clinic in Australia some years back. He said one of the panel speakers was none other than Ron Clarke. Someone asked him how he trained. He stood up and said, "When I felt good, I ran hard. When I didn't feel good, I didn't run as hard." And he sat down. Well...! Do we really need heart rate monitor to tell you if you're feeling lousy? Do we really need some magazine article to tell you how much you should be running?

That reminds me of this cute story Arthur told me. He said he was invited to this foot doctor's office down in TX. He said he wanted to analyze his runing form. It took him all afternoon to measure his style (which, by the way, was not that pretty!), having him run on the treadmill with light bulbs on his joints; high speed camera, strobo lights and all. "I'll analyze our findings tonight and let you know tomorrow morning,: the man said to him. Next morning, Arthur went back to his office. "Arthur," he said to him proudly, "you're bow-legged!" "Yes, I've known that for the last 40 years," Arthur replied. ;o)

---

Greg, I happen to know your circumstances and that we are at comparable stages of our running "career," so I'll chime in briefly to say (a) Nobby's suggestions make a lot of sense and (b) give a real world example. Last winter, due to life's interruptions, I was unable to put in the miles I did before my Fall marathon, especially on my long-run weekends. I adapted by running home from work on Wednesdays. It's @14 miles, but the last 5 miles are hilly and net uphill by a few hundred feet. I'd adjust the distance by adding a loop at the start, so sometimes it was 20, sometimes it was 17, etc. I used Pfitz's recommended effort (20% max HR down to 10% max HR in the last miles), which meant I transferred from 9:30-+ miles to as low as 8:20 miles. I think I ran 3 hours or more only 2 or 3 times. I also added one day of tempo per week. The result was that I cut 7 minutes from my marathon time and felt strong enough to "kick" the last 5 miles (v. my previous fade). I'm sure it would have been better had I been able to keep up the mileage throughout the week -- but such is life.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 08:49 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 09:26 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 09:31 AM               

Another question, this regarding macro cycles. So basic premise is aerobic development, then anaerobic/strength and sharpening. How long do you folks figure for these cycles to last? I know a lot of this is really runner dependant but I'm just looking for guidelines here. I'm big on taking a downtime late in late fall and hibernate for a month before picking it back up again.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 09:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Any comment on Bideau and Mottram's training?

---

Well... I'm in frequent contact with coach Bideau. He endorses what we are doing with Lydiard Foundation and he gave us a "testimonial" as follows: "The principles of aerobic conditioning as explained by Arthur Lydiard in his books almost half a century ago remain constant today in the success of all the athlete I coach."

Do they follow the Lydiard schedule to the tea (tee?)? No. Do they understand the PRINCIPLES of Lydiard progam and adopt to their circumstances and environment? Absolutely! Can we call Mottram "a Lydiard runner"? Based on what I hear from Bideau, I would say so.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runfastcoach:
Later, Arthur worked with a lot of lower caliber runners and joggers who really weren't able to do the paces regularly as well as the elite guys. Shrewdly, Arthur focuse the lower level runners on "running the miles" and later, "running the minutes." It was logical that he just tell lower level runners to work up to 2 hours of continuous running on the weekend rather than run 22 miles like Halberg, Snell, Davies, Bailey, Philpott or the like. Each was running roughly the same time, but one was covering much less distance.
Tinman[/B]

---

Hello Tinman. I'm so glad to see you over here.

I have a question for you. Arthur said "running the miles" not "jogging the miles". What would this be based off a 5k time for this type of a runner?

Thanks,
Cathy

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 12:42 PM               

When Lydiard worked with lower caliber runners, he realized the most important thing, at first, was to go the distance and not worry about the pace. Later, he altered even more to say that they should go the minutes. That means, just run a certain length of time. Cover at the pace that you can, but cover it.

Keeping one's cardio-vascular system working for long periods of time elevates the capacity to deliever oxygen and nutrients to working muscles. It's sort of like bulding a highway to the construction site. If you have a sufficient highway system, then bringing the supplies to the site is easy and constructing the site is time effective and efficient.

Base or Marathon Training, as Arthur would call it, builds the highway. It also builds the mitochondria - the little organelles within the muscles fibers - so that oxygen can be used to generate ATP to do work at the site.

Do I believe there are correct paces to run? Yes and no! The most important reason I set paces for each runner, based on their fitness or performance level, is to ensure that they are REALISTIC. Far too many runner try to simulate the training paces and distance of world class runners. They see that Alberto Salazar ran all his distance work at 6:15-6:30 per mile, so they assume that the only way to run fast is do that too.

Truth is, 6:15 -6:30 pace, a common pace for Salazar when he wasn't running intervals, fartleks, or hills, was exactly was easy. But, for a guy or gal who is running 20 minutes in the 5k (instead of 13:12 like Al), 6:15-6:30 is ridiculously hard. For Al, that's about 60% effort. For the 20 flat 5k runners that's race pace.

I once coached a marathoner from Colorado Springs who was chronically running too fast and doing too many miles. He was trying to be another Frank Shorter, I think - win an Olympic gold medal in the marathon. The problem was, my runner was living at over 6,000 feet elevation and running faster per mile than Frank did in Boulder, CO (5200 feet) by 30 seconds per mile. I told my runner that Frank ran 90% of his miles at 6:40-7:00 per mile at a lower elevation. My runner was runing 6 minute pace at a higher elevation.

The first thing I did when agreeing to train him was cut his mileage down. He had been running 140-150 miles per week at that pace. I cut him to 95-105 per week and slowed his pace by 30-45 seconds per mile. He hated me for it during the first 6 weeks. He rebelled a couple of times and then would say he was "tired" or "ill." I knew he was training too hard, so I'd cut out his tempo runs or his repeat miles at CV pace or whatever to make sure he recovered. He hated that more and almost quit me as as his coach.

Within 6 months, he was running faster at ever distance from the 5k to the marathon. He ran about 20 seconds faster in the 5k and 1 minute faster in the 10k and 6 minutes faster in the marathon (from 2:23 to 2:17).

Cathy, the point is, a runner must be realistic about training paces used. Going too fast is often more of problem than going too slow! Cover the distance you scheduled comfortably. Once you can do that, then speed up the pace on some of the runs - not all of them. Typically, if you pay attention to the effort and make it modest, then the paces gradually and naturally speed up as you get fitter over the weeks.

If you want general rule about training paces, use the following guidelines and you probably can't go wrong. They are a tad conservative, that's better than running to hard and not going the distance one needs to build aerobic capacity.

Slow days should be no faster than 2.5 minutes pre mile slower than your current 5k pace. Run as Slowly as you need to! I coach a 15:54 Master's runner who run 8.5-9 minuter per mile, but his 5k race-pace is 5:07 per mile over 5k. That's just right for him on the 3 or 4 days per week that I prescribe "Slow" 8-10 milers.

EZ days should be about 2 minutes per mile slower than your current 5k pace.

Moderate days sholuld be about 1.5 minutes per mile slower than your current 5k pace.

Long Slow Tempo Days (Tinman Tempos) should be about 1 minute per mile slower than your current 5k pace.

Start with the Slow and EZ runs and build your distance or time up first. Once you reach the amount or volume per run or per week that you think is realistic for your performance level and time constraints, then integrate Moderate and Long Slow tempo running 2-3 times per week, retaining your Slow and EZ running on the other days. This is in alignment with the fundamentals of Lydiard's method. Remember, he did say in his first book, Running to the Top, that one should vary the pace and the distance per day in training.

Take care,

Tinman
runfastcoach@gmail.com

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 01:01 PM               

Tinman, your story reminded me of this book I read a couple of years ago in Japan called "The Runner Who Was Too Fast". It is about a guy by the name of Hayata who ran 2:08.10 something. He was a young superstar to be in the early 90s; his achievement in Ekiden was phenomenal; passing 10, 12, 15 runners each leg he entered. He was very fast...up to about 20k. And because he was so fast, he wanted to train fast. A new coach took over the team who was previously trained under Soh brothers (who was known as a pioneer of ultramarathon training for marathons). He put him under long slow (for him) type of training and he hated it because he always felt sluggish. He wanted to get out and blast away but his coach didn't let him. That's when he ran 2:08. Man, "what could I have done if I trained faster?" he thought. He went back to his old regimen of doing repeats and fast 15k or fast 20k. He never ran as fast again. Reading this book, I couldn't help but thin about Dave Morris as well. "I always felt sluggish doing those 40k tempo runs. I wanted to do quarters," he told me. Well, he never ran 2:09 again.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runfastcoach:
The first thing I did when agreeing to train him was cut his mileage down. He had been running 140-150 miles per week at that pace. I cut him to 95-105 per week and slowed his pace by 30-45 seconds per mile. He hated me for it during the first 6 weeks. He rebelled a couple of times and then would say he was "tired" or "ill." I knew he was training too hard, so I'd cut out his tempo runs or his repeat miles at CV pace or whatever to make sure he recovered. He hated that more and almost quit me as as his coach.
Within 6 months, he was running faster at ever distance from the 5k to the marathon. He ran about 20 seconds faster in the 5k and 1 minute faster in the 10k and 6 minutes faster in the marathon (from 2:23 to 2:17).

---

Good post.

Love your highway analogy about mitochondria and capillaries.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 02:21 PM               

When Lydiard worked with lower caliber runners, he realized the most important thing, at first, was to go the distance and not worry about the pace. Later, he altered even more to say that they should go the minutes. That means, just run a certain length of time. Cover at the pace that you can, but cover it.

Just to back up Tinman and also answer the question about running the miles. I was one of those lower calibre runners. We all are at some stage !

For my long runs. I was told in my early years to just get out and run. This was by guys like Jack Dolan, Bruce Harrison and George Gibson the later two were 2 of Arthur's original "Boys"
No one (least of all me) would know how fast I had gone or how far. It was get the time on your feet.
From when I started to my first Waiatarua was about 2 years. However, as time went on I began to run courses a lot "faster" but the effort felt no more than if I was jogging.
To illustrate I will repeat another story I put on letsrun thread.(Sorry!)

My best "faster" long run with Bill Baillie (and a crew of far better runners than me) was from his holiday home North of Auckland where we set out to run 22 miles one hot summers morning (Jan 1973 !!!).
After one hour some of the guys got a little "toey" ( Kiwi-ism for wanting to run faster). They (and Bill) literally took off. I just kept running along the best I could comfortably. Over the next 1/2 to 3/4 of an hour I would come across exhausted runners on the side of the road. As I got to the 21 mile mark Bill's wife Val pulled up in a car (Bill in passenger seat) and said "Do you want a ride". I said "No, not until I do 22
miles" At which point I joined them in the car. I did not have a watch on that day but Bill said if had kept that pace up I would have run a 2:40 marathon.
It also turned out that only 3 of us ran the full 22 miles. Bill only went 20 !
My point I guess, is that it took me basically 4 years to get to that sort of level of Aerobic fitness to do that sort of run.
Most of our long runs were done at around the 7 minute mile mark.
The fast times for the famous 22 mile Waiatarua Run that were talked about in Arthurs Book's came about because of some "skullduggery" by Bill and some of the other athletes.
Most of the time that course was run in 2hrs 25 - 30. Barry Magee and Jeff Julian had times around 2 hrs 15 on a consistent basis.
One day Bill said some of them ran around 2:20, but told Jeff Julian they did 2:15. So Jeff went out and did 2:12.
They repeated the process the next week and told him they did 2:12. He went out and did 2:08.
That opened a can of worms as athletes started to go faster and faster around that course.
As Peter Snell said he cut his time from 2:25 to 2:15 with the odd one in 2:12. Bill confirmed that most of the runs were around 2:20 - 25.
That course, even though it had a really tough hill in it was predominately downhill. After the first hour of which 20 minutes was up hill, the rest was not necessarily easy but was a lot more pleasant running. The worst hill was near the finish at Arthurs house !!!.

What is interesting even though I had stopped competing (but still continued to run, as I still do) and years later I found I could run a tough long course with out any problem at all.
One year I was a training hack for one of our guys who was a good steeplechaser (8:30). No problem running the 2 hour plus slots at all.
Even now at 58 years old I can get out with my athletes and after 11/2 hours I notice I am just starting to feel it. What the pace is I would'nt have a clue !

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 05:36 PM            

First of all, I want to thank you for taking up so much of your time to answer my post. You have answered a lot of my questions. As an older (54) and newer (less than 3 years) runner, I can find it very hard for me to post.

For me, I ran my second and last 5k with under a year of running in 28 min. I enjoyed running and kept upping the mileage to train for a half. Unfortunately, I was injured running downhill. I slipped on a sidewalk and injured a hamstring trying to recover my fall. I ended up with a partial tear. After six months, I was able to start running again.

I found the new formed Maffetone thread and did a lot of slow running. So much slow running in fact I "ran" or more like jogged three marathons last year. 5 hrs. I PR'ed each one, but I know I can do much better than this if I train right. I have cut my mileage back, and I have been fortunate enough to find "TheRunZone". After reading your articles, and also lurking on the Zone Forum, (I'm still amazed at all your thoughful answers to posters), I have come to realize that I am not really ready to run a marathon.

My focus has been trying to improve my running biomechanics doing small amounts of hill bounding and working on turnover. I'm sure you have read "Programmed to Run" by Thomas Miller, PhD.

I guess my point is that since I have been working on turnover and form, my pace is faster than before and I seem to recover better. I feel that all the long very slow mileage was hindering my form and putting stress on my hamstrings from too long of a ground contact. That's why I was wondering if one can go in the other direction and really train too slow.

As a trainer, what is your thought on Maffetone?

Cathy

Nobby and Kim- Thanks for the stories. It makes me wonder what I could have done if I had started running tears ago.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 06:08 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 07:59 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 08:11 PM            

Thanks

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 08:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
StealthRunner, you are asking some great questions. They suggest that you are doing a lot of serious thinking about how to improve yourself.

---

Thanks Tigger.

I think the most important thing is that I love to run. I also am a firm believer that anything worth doing is worth doing right. I usually just keep quiet on these threads and try to learn as much as I can.

A five hour + marathon is not fun. I came to this realization at about mile 24 at my last one. I also crashed and burned hard afterwards taking me three months to get over it. Mind you, I'm glad that I did the first one. But now I can look back and see how silly it really was to keep going and "run" two more. I can see where it takes years and a lot of SMART TRAINING to run a marathon. And as I found out after #3, yes you can increase your daily mileage by jogging them, and yes if you put a lot of time in you can do a marathon. But, unfortunately I also found out that it can just end up giving you overuse injuries that can take time to get over.

So, that is why I am here. I love to run, I want to run smart, and what better place to go than to a post which has some GREAT TRAINERS.

Cathy

Also, why I'm thinking about it. Any thoughts about Pose running?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 08:56 PM               

Thanks for your kind words!

I once listened to scientist speak about insulin reactions - alpha and beta chemical reactions, specifically. He used an example of drinking orange juice to illustrate his point. Orange juice, it turns out, in small quantities for an average person is a very healthy liquid to consume. But, if you drink 8 glasses of it in one sitting, you'll probably end up in the emergency room. It not only would provide you with way too much sugar, but a few small elements, like arsenic, that is found it will become toxic to your body. The point is, too much of any one thing is not good!

Balance is key. And, the second is what I simply call Realisim - it is a chapter in a book I have been writing off and on for two years. Do workouts or runs that you can achieve with success and not have to go all-out! That's a key!

A marathon for a person who runs 28 minute 5ks is quite a stretch. In my opinion, anyone running slower than 25 minutes in the 5k probably should participate in the half-marathon. To me, that is REALISTIC! There is no shame in running half-marathons. It is still a long distance.

Right now, for example, I am not in good shape. I've done 20 minutes of running or cycling per day this winter. For me, right now, building to a half -marathon is reasonable (realistic). Once I have done that, then I can figure out if I should stay at that level for a little while or if I should build. I won't run a marathon until I can run under 21 minutes - that's my (personal) reference mark. The reason is I know that suffering the last 10k-15k of a marathon is something I don't like very much. I tend to cramp a lot and it is torture for me to run a marathon when I am not ready for it. Make sense?

Take care,

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StealthRunner:
A five hour + marathon is not fun. I came to this realization at about mile 24 at my last one.

---

My circumstances are very similar to yours....including age. I ran (hobbled?) 5 marathons between 4:40 and 5 hrs before deciding there were easier ways to kill myself. Since the last one in 2001 I have focused on other goals.

To Nobby, Kim & Tinman....thanks for taking the time to explain in very simple terms how to become a better runner.

Edited to add: Tinman, I just read your last post and fully agree with your opinion on running marathons. My 5k PR is 25 min, and I have concluded I am better off running shorter distances.

[This message has been edited by tigger (edited Apr-25-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-25-2007 09:24 PM               

I am limited on time, so this is brief. Dr. Maffetone's method of conditioning for running is generally fine. However, if only slow distance running is used (which is part of his method) then it will NOT produce the results you are hoping for, in my opinion. If you use it for 6 weeks and then move on to a mix of slower, moderate, and somewhat fast distance running you'll find your fitness and performance levels rising dramatically, by comparison.

Several runners who used either the Maffetone or the Hadd method of long, slow running daily, without some moderate or faster distance running, have contacted me over the last 3-4 years. Each of them found good improvements in the early going but they leveled off or got worse thereafter. I quickly provided them with a more balanced mix of distance work, slow, moderate and fast, in proportions of about 60, 30, and 10%, and the results were quite amazing.

One man, a professor from San Diego, improved from about 9 minutes per mile to 7:30 per mile in 12 weeks and he ran a very strong marathon, too. He was very pleased in both his elevated performance doing it the way I outlined and found a great sense of strength and vitality in his days and way.

So, my answer to your questions about what I think of the Maffetone method is therefore - mix it with some moderate and quicker distance running and you'll experience much better improvements and a better feeling of well-being.

Take care,

Tinnman

IP: Logged