| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-27-2007 10:25 AM
   
Dear Lydiard Posse:Another tangent, sorry. Could I get your thoughts on Martin/Coe or Vigil's ideas about multi-pace training? Specifically, do you think it's a "different" approach than Lydiards? I remember there was a thread over at Letsrun that seemed to put Lydiard as a direct opposite of these guys (Daniels too), but I'm not so sure that's right...
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by runawayjesse:
I'm not talking about striders. I do strides 52 weeks per year, I'm well aware of their benefits. Lydiards Sprint/floats were way more than just stides. They served more as a anaerobic power/lactait tolerance workout than anything. I believe very few people do them the way Lydiard perscribed. They were a true sharpener workout "putting the edge on the knife" lydiard would say. I did them during my last 5k training and they did just that for me. They are a "puke your guts out" workout. The time to dig down deep. They sharpen you up real quick which is why they are done so close to peak. He said to never plan a set distance for these as you might want to hold back. Instead you just go till you "hit the wall". The most I can remember doing is 6 laps around a 400 meter track of 100 meter all out with 100 meter float(not jog). Usually 5 or 6 laps was enough to hold my HR at it's max for long enough and finally I would drop. I was racing 5k's everyweekend at this time and after 3 weeks of these sharpeners I became a whole different beast.Kim I like your explaination but, really their are a few dozen different ways to increase stride length, work on knee lift etc.. without going so anaerobic. These workouts as I understand them are very hard and should only be done near peak. Again I'm having a hard time seeing where such an anaerobic puke your guts out workout has it's place 3-4 weeks out from a marathon. Sets of 200 meter striders w/ 200 easy jogs(not floats) seem more doable wouldn't you say? I'm not trying to discredit lydiard at all here. It's just one of those things that leaves me scratching my head. On one hand your doing marathon paced time trials on the weekend which makes loads of sense to me during a coordnation phase(looking for weaknesses)than doing this workout mid week that goes off in the complete opposit direction. I would think you would use this day to work on your weaknesses. No?
Runaway, Sounds like Bowerman's 30/40 workout, which was one hell of a bear. But no so sure that was geared specifically for the marathon--though as Kim pointed out, these were track guys first...
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 03:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by brianfie:
Ahem....I think runawayjessie is a chick!BTW: This thread is a classic. I am lapping it up!
Ahh, no I'm not. I'm a guy.
IP: Logged |
brianfie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 03:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Ahh, no I'm not. I'm a guy.
Sorry for the mistake, jesse, don't know where I got that idea then... -b
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 03:48 PM
Thanks Nobby,
As you know it is sometimes 'interesting' to look at what Arthur 'prescribed' for athletes.
He knew what he would give an athlete according to his or her needs. What suited me did not necessarily suit Joe Bloggs.
For instance I have never run 100 miles a week in my life.
Arthur knew that. The backbone of my own running was a long run on Sundays and 2 long(ish) runs during the week.
As we have said on the other forum. He never intended to write 'schedules' as he said 'circumstances' are different or can change. But the publishers insisted.
I have seen training given by Arthur that does not "resemble" or is the same as what he has published.
I have also given training (that Arthur has seen) that is in a similar vein.
BUT : there are always common threads throughout. eg the long runs.
Regarding marathons, I have never trained anyone specifically for the marathon but have had athletes 'line up' and run a marathon that maybe took their fancy. So with that event I am a little 'shaky'. Cheers everyone keep up the good work. It is great to come to this and not have to sift the rubbish to get to the contributions. ------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 04:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
Cheers everyone keep up the good work. It is great to come to this and not have to sift the rubbish to get to the contributions.
I think the audience here is quite happy to absorb the information that you and others are giving, certainly I am. A lot of it comes from the nature of this particular forum (basic training) where most are looking for realistic and proven paths to improvement. The other is the credentials and experience that you folks are bringing to us here. Lydiard's methods are flung around far too much by people only going by what they've heard or read, whereas you folks have lived it and learned it from the man himself. Makes a big difference.
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 05:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I was going to post a message by starting, "In his defence (though he would probably not need a defence), runawayjessie must know the importance of 'striders' developing better running technique... As I thought, he didn't need my "defence" and he understood the role of "striders" anyways.The truth of the fact is; 50/50 or sprint/float or sharpener or whatever it may be called is quite a different from "striders". I'd like to make a comment on this one later but sprint/float is quite a bit tougher workout than most people realize. As runawayjessie himself commented, it affects anaerobic power, or whatever you call it, (Tinman, I don't want to start a debate on the physiological reaction of this workout here! ;o)) quite significatly and it stimulate anaerobic metabolism as well as develop fine speed. Would a marathon runner really need it? I'm totally with Kim; when Arthur put that schedule together, his marathon runners were glorified track distance men. Their main events were 5 and 10k on track and they trained accordingly. They were just a fast track man who ran marathon. So in that respect, it is logical for them to do a workout like this. Now today's marathon competition is just as feirce and it would pay to sharpen your sprinting ability. So if you're working toward the absolute peak, it would be beneficial. You would most likely get into the extreme anaerobic situation and you may need to rely on sprinting ability. As for so-called "middle-of-packers", I would say not; at least not this type of extreme stress. Even Arthur said it would be better for majority of marathon runners to do 100/100 instead of 50/50 because then they would less likely to hurt themselves. Better yet, I still think slower runners would actually benefit from workout like 5 X 200m FAST with plenty of recovery than plodding Yasso 800s OR full sprint 50/50. The point is; marathon runners would benefit from sprinting work and they would benefit from workout like 50/50 just as middle distance runners would benefit from long endurance work like 22 mile runs. I still believe Lydiard was one of the first people to put them all together; to have marathon people to enter some sprinting events at a low-key track meet as well as to have middle distance runners to go out and run some rediculously long distance. Now, going back to this sprinting business. Partially perhaps because Lydiard criticized so much about people doing too much 400m repeats and they get defensive and reply, "Well, these are not all out anaerobic training..." all of a sudden now it's no-no to run too fast. This is completely opposite of true Lydiardism. He in fact suggest people to get out and work on their speed; get out and sprint full-out (after adequate homework). Running fast and hard requires so much more concentration and attention and planning. In short, it ain't as easy. It's so much easier to just go out and run; hense being a mileage junkie. There's a time to run long, there's a time to run short; there's a time to run easy and there's a time to run hard.... There's NOTHING wrong about getting out and run HARD or FAST. In fact, if you want to improve upon your performance, you need to do that. Now it seems everybody's satisfied with sort of a mediocor effort. "Well, we just do some easy strides here and there..." That's quite a bit different from all-out sprint. It really requires completely different muscles and different mental setting. Don't be afraid to get up on your toes and run fast. Of course, ease into it; never ever do too much too sudden.
Once again you cleared up my troubled mind. I now understand it very well. Thank You
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 08:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
I think the audience here is quite happy to absorb the information that you and others are giving, certainly I am.
Me too. Certainly it's a much more insightful and informative thread than it started out to be. If I may ask Nobby and the other Lydiardites, what were Arthur's ideas on tapering for the marathon? ie. how long to taper, how much to cut mileage, how much fast running during the last few weeks etc. Thanks in advance.
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 08:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by brianfie:
Sorry for the mistake, jesse, don't know where I got that idea then...-b
Him and I debate every now and then....I am the....'chick'..... This chick is in Jersey for her marathon on Sunday. ------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:16 PM
Just got back from San Francisco this afternoon. Finally got a chance to read the very title of this thread, Running Times article, on the plane. Two things; #1, I apologize in advance if I get a bit emotional but I'm one of those fortunate enough to say "I knew the man", he was my coach, mentor and a good friend. And it's only natural that, knowing him in person and knowing what he's done for me and others; it is very disturbing to me if someone who doesn't seem to understand what he's done or his training principle outwardly criticizing him. It reads "New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard, who passed away in 2005..." Well, he passed away in 2004. Dr. (not yet, but wanna-be) what's his name should get a simple fact straight before he published anything. #2; I don't mean to bring this thread down to letsrun bashing fiasco level but I'd have to say, what a load of crap. A lot of fancy terms and stories "seemingly" relevant. The auther used images of Flanagan extensively and her quotes as if to create an illusion that she follows his concept (genetic mumbo-jumbo or low mileage stuff). Well, it so happens my partner used to baby-sit Shalane and we both know her mom well. So we are actually getting her side of story directly. The fact she runs 70~80 miles a week as a 5000m runner, not a marathon runner, that's plenty high to me. Also she stated "The ability to handle more mileage comes over time...", she does NOT insinuate this genetic crap anywhere at all. To use her as a proof to his story, she should have said something like "I was born with superb talant to run 70~80 miles a week. You bunch of slow pokes shouldn't even think about trying..." Instead, she said 70 was all out for her in college and she gradually built up to where she is today. This is a problem in this country this day and age. Whoever writes something and publishes it, it becomes "truth". We don't know any better. If someone starts a website and writes some "impressive looking" story or thesis, he/she will become an expert. Take a look at who wrote it; and read deeply what the content really says. I'm sorry if I brought this whole thread down to a low-quality level. I'm sorry but, man, what a bunch of BS... People like this author and articles like this actually hurt the future of the sport in this country. I actually seriously wonder if Dr. Costil really said what the quote says. Anybody cares to find out for real? I don't know him in person. [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited Apr-27-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Dear Lydiard Posse:Another tangent, sorry. Could I get your thoughts on Martin/Coe or Vigil's ideas about multi-pace training? Specifically, do you think it's a "different" approach than Lydiards? I remember there was a thread over at Letsrun that seemed to put Lydiard as a direct opposite of these guys (Daniels too), but I'm not so sure that's right...
Dr. Dave is one of Lydiard Foundation's Honorary Advisory Staff. He admires the Old Man immensely and completely in agreement with the validity of the principles (otherwise, he woudn't have accepted the post). Anybody who thinks he (and in turn, I would say, Coe) sits the opposite end of the spectrum just doesn't know what the heck he/she is talking about.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:48 PM
One more thing: the auther (of the RT article) seems to be into this "think outside of the box; be innovative..." I'd like him to re-invent the shape of the wheel. His use of Einstein's example was commendable but I would like him to go beyond Einstein then. After all, it's been more than a half a decade siince Einstein came up with the law of relativity. Isn't it about time some brilliant "genetically" superior individual comes up with something innovative? Human physiology hasn't changed since we started walking upright and crawled out of a cave. Why defy fundamental of physiology? Just to come up with a cool looking article?
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:56 PM
I breezed through the Running Times (Jason Karp) article in the book store today. Indeed, it is an article full of, to quote Nobby, "BS."A brief comment about the physiology part, VO2 max may indeed level off at around 70 miles per week for many subjects in short-term studies. But, does that mean the mileage beyone 70 per week is useless, as the author would have the reader believe? Think about it! VO2 max (which is what Dr. David L. Costill, an expert Karp cite, was really talking about) is NOT the only element of distance running performance. In fact, among a group of runners with similar VO2 max, the ones with the highest lactate threshold typically outruns and outraces the other guys or gals. Lactate threshold is elevated in two ways. The first way is by using more fat as fuel and using that fat at a faster rate than before. This type of LT elevation is caused by.....ta da...you guessed it...distance running in large volumes. The more of it you do, within your personal limits, the better your LT becomes. Secondly, LT is improved by running at medium-fast speeds in training. Lots of 10k to half-marathon pace training elevates it. The changes in LT due to mileage are somewhat slow in growing, but they do take place steadily as the weeks, months, and years pass by - when mileage is run consistently. Running ~10 hours per week, on average, for several weeks each year and doing it year after year will advance a runner (who has a VO2 max of 70 and a 5k time of ~15-15:30) down to 14-14:30 minutes or possibly lower in about 3-4 years simply due to LT improvements, I posit. That's without much emphasis at all on faster intervals or anaerobic capacity training!
Lydiard was right and Karp is wrong! Simple as that!
Tinman
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:59 PM
Good! Now at least I'm not the ONLY nasty guy here! ;o)
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 10:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
Him and I debate every now and then....I am the....'chick'.....This chick is in Jersey for her marathon on Sunday.
Are screen names are completely different. I don't believe he was mistaken you and I. Good Luck Jersy.
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-27-2007 11:05 PM
Richard, do you have a response to Nobby and Tinman?
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 01:21 AM
I breezed through the Running Times (Jason Karp) article in the book store today. Indeed, it is an article full of, to quote Nobby, "BS."A brief comment about the physiology part, VO2 max may indeed level off at around 70 miles per week for many subjects in short-term studies. But, does that mean the mileage beyond 70 per week is useless, as the author would have the reader believe? Think about it! VO2 max (which is what Dr. David L. Costill, an expert Karp cite, was really talking about) is NOT the only element of distance running performance. In fact, among a group of runners with similar VO2 max, the ones with the highest lactate threshold typically outruns and outraces the other guys or gals. Lactate threshold is elevated in two ways. The first way is by using more fat as fuel and using that fat at a faster rate than before. This type of LT elevation is caused by.....ta da...you guessed it...distance running in large volumes. The more of it you do, within your personal limits, the better your LT becomes. Secondly, LT is improved by running at medium-fast speeds in training. Lots of 10k to half-marathon pace training elevates it. The changes in LT due to mileage are somewhat slow in growing, but they do take place steadily as the weeks, months, and years pass by - when mileage is run consistently. Running ~10 hours per week, on average, for several weeks each year and doing it year after year will advance a runner (who has a VO2 max of 70 and a 5k time of ~15-15:30) down to 14-14:30 minutes or possibly lower in about 3-4 years simply due to LT improvements, I posit. That's without much emphasis at all on faster intervals or anaerobic capacity training!
Lydiard was right and Karp is wrong! Simple as that!
Tinman
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 10:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Runaway,Sounds like Bowerman's 30/40 workout, which was one hell of a bear. But no so sure that was geared specifically for the marathon--though as Kim pointed out, these were track guys first...
It also sounds like a Veronique Billat type of workout. You are coming off the float still sucking air and you have to push again. Thanks for Nenow's training, Tinman.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 03:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Richard, do you have a response to Nobby and Tinman?
I won't expect it. Richard did have some comments on Lydiard on his forum, in this thread.
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 04:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by runfastcoach:
[B]I breezed through the Running Times (Jason Karp) article in the book store today. Indeed, it is an article full of, to quote Nobby, "BS."
Wow !. I have the greatest respect for Tinman and Nobby.
Over the last 3 years I have had a lot of correspondence with Tinman, sharing ideas and of course with Nobby I share his vision of ensuring that Arthur is still out there.
A "little" Arthur story: This was many years ago and was the first time I met Arthur. It was my GraduateTeacher Training course I had asked him to speak to.
Most of my colleagues had gone to an Academic Institution where some of the Ex Phys Lecturers believed in ( I am being simplistic here) "Interval training".
One of my friends made a statement about some aspects of training which disagreed with what Arthur was discussing.
Arthur then said " Okay,now can you tell me which athletes have these gentlemen actually Coached to any sort of standard in our Sport".
My buddy said "Well none , but ...... ?
Everyone laughed but took on the message very quickly.
That day Arthur 'sold his message' to a room full of young Physical Educators.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 09:48 PM
The trouble is that we live in a world where getting an article published makes you an "expert" and you don't have to prove your ideas in the real world. It's much easier to get published than it is to win a major race and I think we get a lot of people who couldn't be the athlete or coach that they'd hoped to be who decide to compenstae by becoming "experts."
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 10:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
I won't expect it. Richard did have some comments on Lydiard on his forum, in this thread.
Jim: Thanks for posting this link. It gave me an even better picture here. Some of you here might be aware; Lydiard had published several books through a German company before he passed away. Besindes "Running to the Top", he had "Distance Training for Masters", "Distance Training for Women", "Distance Training for Young Athletes", and "Jogging with Lydiard"; each and every one of them carries "similar but slightly different, geared toward each category, training schedules". In fact, none of them says "Run 100 miles a week." That would be an easy publication, wouldn't it? I wonder if those "Lydiard said everybody runs 100 miles a week" critics even knew there have been several books with different schedules published... Here we have it again; they should have done a better research before they even opened up their mouths. What do people expect? There are, what, somebody has statistic? Some 30 million people running/jogging? Do they expect Lydiard to come up with a unique training schedule for each and every one of them? The very reason what drove Lydiard crazy and made him to say, "Hey, stretching is a waste of time" or "weight training is waste of time" is some idiots asking same old nonsense questions over and over and over and he got tired of it. Rengle said it at letsrun before; Lydiard training is not geared toward "idiots". Some read "100 miles a week" and that's all they see; cold print. Others, like Ron Daws, use what they've got between ears and read THROUGH the cold prints and understand the PRINCIPLES. But then again, not everybody is genetically smart, I guess...
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-28-2007 11:22 PM
I apologize for the last few posts being rather hostile. I guess I started out alright, staying cool (?) and just simply ignore some noise but, honestly, the more I found out what was going on, the more I...well, I'm sorry, but what a nonsense!Okay, this is it; last time. I won't b*%$h again. I'll be cool. Not that I'm trying to hi-jack the thread into the Lydiard thread but there have been some interesting inquiries and stories here. I'd like to share my thoughts if I may... Effort for 50/50 or other "sprint drills" according to Lydiard. There are times that you should run ALL OUT sprint. There should be some leg-speed work, not necessarily trying to run a fast time, but trying to move your legs as fast as possible. You should include some runs of, say, 120~150m pretty close to all out sprint. I mean, not even 7/8 effort; just open up and run hard. When do you do that? Well, I guess I'd say when you need to do it. Have you had an experience when you get into, say, 800m race and you are pushing as hard as you can but you just can't move your legs fast. At then end of the run, after 3 minutes of rest, you feel like you can go at it again... Well, you should work on your leg-speed. Marathon taper again depends on the individual. Usually 3~4 weeks would be good? Psychology plays an important role as well. If you feel you won't recover enough in 3 week, then go for 4. I wouldn't really go beyond 4 weeks though. Also depends on what you do during the taper. Some recover quickly and can get away with 3 weeks or even less (I'd be hesitant to go with 2 weeks though). Some may need more to recover. I actually think Lydiard had the right idea when he had a marathon trial 3 or 4 weeks before the actual marathon race. If anything, Japanese marathon runners took that idea and adopted it very well. The point is; you give your body a certain stress, hopefully similar to that you would face in the race, and your body will adapt to it and grows stronger. Sometimes, though not necessarily recommended, if you run a marathon and blew it; 5 or 6 weeks later, try another one and you'd surprise yourself by running even better than expected? It's because you run one and your body would go, "Wow! This sucks! I'd better get stronger to take this s... I mean, stress!" Marathon time trial, or later 20 miles or 25k time trial, as Japanese would do a 40k time trial, are all designed to do that in an artificial manner. Now, that Salazar-Ritz story is quite interesting. I had this discussion with our colleague, Greg McMillan, on the topic of taking energy suppliment during a long run. The whole purpose, or at least one of the important purposes of a long run is to train your body to go through glycogen depletion and to go through that "wall" and into the fat burning metabolism smoothly. Now, when your body is just about to deplete your glycogen, you supply it with this energy supplement... Does this make sense to you? It's like; okay in order to run well in the footrace of 26 miles, we'll prepare ourselves by running 6 miles... You're really not preparing your body for that, are you? Now a big part of preparing for the marathon is to take poundings. I don't care what anybody else might say; it wouldn't matter how fit or well-conditionined you are aerobically or LT pace or whatever the fancy term you may want to use; if your legs can't take poundings, you're a goner in the marathon. (one of Arthur's favorite sarcastic criticisms; "I wasn't tired, I could talk but I couldn't move my legs... Well, if you couldn't move your legs in the marathon, it wouldn't do you much good!") So preparing to run a marathon by taking half of your body weight away from your runnikng... (granted, I guess it was to counter some sort of injury?) That's not gonna work too well, is it? Why do we go high altitude? So we'll have less oxygen and our body try to retain more oxygen in that environment. So to prepare to run a good marathon by, say, adding extra weight to strengthen your ability to take pounding makes more sense (ah, that was what I was doing before my last marathon; by eating a lot and watching TV on a counch...???). Sometimes thinking too much may not always work for better.
IP: Logged |
Tchuck
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2007 08:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I had this discussion with our colleague, Greg McMillan, on the topic of taking energy suppliment during a long run. The whole purpose, or at least one of the important purposes of a long run is to train your body to go through glycogen depletion and to go through that "wall" and into the fat burning metabolism smoothly. Now, when your body is just about to deplete your glycogen, you supply it with this energy supplement... Does this make sense to you? It's like; okay in order to run well in the footrace of 26 miles, we'll prepare ourselves by running 6 miles... You're really not preparing your body for that, are you?
Nobby, great stuff. With above statement, are you saying it is best to do long runs on empty stomach (no carbs a few hrs before) and only consume carbs in long run (long race) when nearing glycogen depletion? This is how I do them and consume no carbs but then again my longest long run are 11 miles. ------------------
Todd
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-29-2007 09:57 AM
Todd,I can see two ways of looking at this. Essentially I agree with Nobby. You want your long run to get your body adapted to running when it's low on glycogen so I don't see a point to taking glycogen supplements while you're doing a long run, though there is now an industry which will tell you there is a point because it wants to sell you glycogen supplements.
I imagine the supplements might make the run more pleasant though and you might want that. If you're going to use them during a race then you probably should experiment with them in training.
Lydiard used to advise people to eat toast with honey a few hours before a marathon. Shorter used to drink de-fizzed cola during races and there were guys in the old days who'd tuck a small packet of jelly beans into their shorts so they could eat a few of them in the later stages of marathons. I used to do the whole carbohydrate depletion/loading thing and it got me my second and third fastest marathon, each of which were PRs at the time. My best one came with no special preparation at all.
If your longest runs are just 11 miles, I don't see any need for any sort of special dietary arrangements or refueling as you go. I'm guessing you do those runs in less than two hours. Your body stores enough glycogen for two hours of running so I can't see any advantage to loading up on it before or during the run.
Now, if you were trying to run for three hours (just an arbitrary number but in the general neighborhood of what I mean) and were consistently having trouble getting yourself to do it, I'd think it might be worthwhile to have some supplemental glycogen along the way.
IP: Logged |
 |
