quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:
And Kim a question if I may. Keeping with Lydiards principle that a young runner(or beginner) do less anaerobic work only building as you become fitter and mature, how would you apply that to the rest of the training. in a Lydiard cycle you have base, anaerobic, sharpening, tapering, racing. The anaerobic phase lasts 4 weeks or so according to the guidline(but we know thats not in stone). So would the imature runner just shorten the anaerobic phases and extend the base? Or would he do less anaerobic sessions per phase but keeping the phase length the same? Or perhaps less work per workout with the same amount of workouts(3 in Lydiards example)and the same lenght of phase. ?????

Also speaking of Lydiards anaerobic conditioning phase Lydiard really never says what to do. I read Marty Liquori's book and he does the same thing. So do the anaerobic workouts done in the anaerobic phase have any specifity of the event? like would a 5k runner and a marathoner be doing the same workouts in that phase? Benson who claims to use a Lydiard model uses very specific workouts during that phase.

Did Lydiard really have his guys just go out and run themselves into oxygen depth with no regard to their event? If thats the case it would almost seem like all runners use the same program all the way up to the sharpening/coordnation phase.<HR>

Ah, right! This IS getting really interesting...! Cheap entertainment, as someone said. Kim and Jesse, perhaps we should charge those lurkers!? ;o)

Seriously, though, I'm not Kim but here's my take: We (Lorraine Moller, Rod Dixon, Steve Scott and myself) did a Lydiard gig in LA a few weekends ago. We presented the pilot program of Part I and Part II Lydiard presentation. Part II deals with "Application of Lydiard Program" and deals specifically for high school and college runners, someone who only has 3 months to peak, etc. We will soon make it available on our website. But, in general, here's what you'd have to think about:

* Where are you in terms of your aerobic development?
* Are you a speed type or endurance type (I guess you could say fast twitch guy or slow twitch guy)?
* What have you been doing in the past 3 months?
* How often do you race once the season starts?

There are more but these are basic things. If you're racing twice a week, I really don't think you need 4 weeks of anaerobic training especially for young kids. And how long is the season? 3 weeks (like MN!)? Or 3 months? How many races are you planning on competing? When is your target race that you want to perform at your best? If you're, for example, a soccer player and run around the field all day long for 3 months before XC, you may not need as much "aerobic conditioning". Cut it down to 4 weeks instead of 10. Some people sharpen very quickly. Don't start anaerobic phase too eary; just use early races to sharpen and do some sprint work and call it a day. On the other hand, if it takes a long time, and gradually, to get your racing fitness, well, start doing some anaerobic work during the hill phase. There are hundreds of combinations you can think of according to the individual and environment and situation. 10-4-4-4-2 is NOTHING BUT A GUIDE.

And, so, anaerobic training; what's the purpose of anaerobic training? Develop your anaerobic capacity to maximum; develop your tolerrence to oxygen debt. So how do you do that? To make yourself tired with volume of speed. You can do it by running 400, or 800, or 1000... Or you can get out and run around the lake 4km as hard as you can; you're going to get into oxygen debt and stimulate anaerobic metabolism. You can do hills--not bounding, but run up FAST. I believe Magee and Snell both, at times, did 20X400 type of workout. Magee is a marathon runner and Snell is 800/1500. I'm sure Snell can do them faster (and he should); and Magee, perhaps more in number??? Or he may prefer longer reps like 800s. Should he avoid 200s? Well, if he wants to work on final sprint, maybe 200 wouldn't hurt. I have a 10-week track schedule Snell did leading up to Tokyo. According to that, he only did 9 anaerobic repeats. It seems, I don't have it in front me now, he did 3 or 4 800 repeats but only twice did he do 400 repeats. It wouldn't hurt Snell to do 800s; just as it wouldn't hurt Magee to do 200s. But you'd still have to keep it balanced and construct the schedule according to the individual.

Now, with Coe's information... Thanks, now it makes sense. It's in the first edition as well. And here's my answer to that and I know you're not gonna like it! Now, this is strictly my opinion! ;o) I'll ask Dr. Dave later to get his opinion but here's mine. I don't buy it. It does not make sense. For example, when he was 16, on the week 37, he ran total of 8 miles that week and that was "100% anaerobic". That means, if you take it literally, all those 9 miles were anaerobic. So it could be, say one day 6X800 (3 miles) with NO recovery jog in between, no warm-up, no cool-down; and he might have gone on to the track and did 2 miles of time trial, hard anaerobic run; maybe he did it twice (remember, he only trained 4 days that week); and the fourth day was a 1500m race (approximately a mile). So that's 8 miles. No warm-up or cool-down for 1500m race? Would any sensible coach give such a workout schedule on the week of the race? I highly doubt it. It makes much more sense, as Kim pointed out, that he probably did A LOT more aerobic easy kilometers and never bothered to count it. And I would not take those % for its face-value. The week 42, he participated a cross country race (I don't know the distance, but I would imagine, for a 16-year-old, it's probably a 5k race...???) and no anaerobic element whatsoever (100% aerobic)? No, I don't quite believe those numbers. On the week 48 was another cross country race and this time it was 83% anaerobic. It just does not add up.

I have a chart of Viren training break-down in 1972. Some month, it was recorded that he did (I can't remember the exact number so I'm just throwing it) 18% anaerobic. Then you look down and it says the runs with HR beyond 140bpm and that's 18%. That sort of leads me to believe they were counting any runs with his HR beyond 140 being anaerobic. For someone who could run 15k in 1:20 with HR being 84 , I highly question his run be "anaerobic" when his HR reaches only 140... I think it's just a simple way of gathering the information; nothing scientific intended. That's my opinion.

I remember talking to Bob Sevene about Lopes' training after LA Olympics. Reportedly, he only ran something like 70 miles a week or something like that (I can't remember the exact numbers). He simply said (without a smile), "I think he's lying..." I'm not saying Coe and Viren "lied" but I just don't take those numbers for its face-value. That's all. But then again, it's just my interpretation... ;o)

http://This message has been edited by Nobby (edited Jul-12-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:
"...Especially for young developing runners, the quanity of aerobic conditioning should be kept considerably below this volume untill their working muscles and connective tissues develop the tolerance to such work. Including a well-designed program of comprehensive conditioning (*my note- by this he means weight training and flexibility training) and some faster paced running in addtiion to the endurance base produces a more balanced athlete with many well-developed talents: strength, speed, good range of joint mobility, and anaerobic work tolerance. Our comcept of multi-tier training promotes this kind of development."<HR>

Runawayjesse:

Now, I'd take it back that you said "more anaerobic and less aerobic for younger athletes". You didn't. But here, as I interpret it, Martin/Coe suggest that, for younger developing athletes, the aerobic mileage should be kept considerably less than 60~90 miles a week; and "some faster paced running" should be added.

In the Part II presentation, we presented, as a variation of Lydiard conditioning, particularly for high schoolers, 100km (62 miles) per week schedule. Also, with my personal suggestion to younger runners, I always tell them to include some cross country type fartlek and hill exercise. I totally agree with the above statement by Martin/Coe; I personally strongly believe that young runners should work on suppleness by doing lots of fartlek type of running over rugged cross country courses and do Lydiard type hill exercises every chance they can get. Now Lydiard may not have said it this way. In fact, he had said that he believed a young runners (teenagers) COULD manage 100 MPW. But that does not mean he would insisted ALL runners do that either. In fact, in his "Distance Training for Young Athletes", schedule presented in that book is so much more forgiving. It even includes 200 strides on Friday during thte Marathon Conditioning phase! Did he finally back down with all the criticism? Well, not really. In fact, all the schedules in "Running with Lydiard" have what Greg McMillan calls "sub-maximal tempo" runs as well as fartlek in the conditioning phase. All the cross country schedules include strides on Friday during conditoning.

Lydiard said, and I believe it's in his Osaka lecture, he believed runners should work on their speed 52 weeks a year. I know some got confused this statement with anaerobic interval type training. But you have to realize that, in his mind, anaerobic training and speed training is totally different workout. As has been stated by myself, Rengle and Kim also, Lydiard's runners all did lots of hill running. If Lydiard never mentioned that in his book or lecture, it's his fault; but his "conditioning" is a lot more than just 100 miles a week.

Now, he was probably not the best person to convey information (he basically talked whatever he wanted to); but he is not okay-get-a-runner-put-him-in-a-volume-training kind of a guy. If you ever read Peter Snell's biography--and I believe it's going to be republished--, the first workout he did with Lydiard school when he first joined them was repeat 200s. There are time and place for everything. Written schedules only show a part of it.

http://This message has been edited by Nobby (edited Jul-13-2007).

I should mention here what I did for my daughter last year. She ran XC last fall for the first time ever. She had run sporatically when younger (ran a 24:40 5k race at age 11 - beat me by about 40 seconds!) but focused on other sports in HS, so only turned to running in her final year. She was 16 last fall, turning 17 in Dec. I should add that she ran that same 5k race with me when she was 14, but she had NO training, and she faded badly after 2k, finishing up a couple of minutes behind my 26 min (approx) time. So much for talent!! Doesn't get you very far without training.

Her HS coach knew very little...just a teacher who wanted to help. He had them doing 4 runs per week, with the longest being 8k and one day of 400 meter sprint intervals. Off this training my daughter managed to qualify for Ontario provincial XC championships in Thunder Bay, where she ran 5.2k in just under 23 min. She had a terrific head cold at the time, and she said she thought she could have done better if healthy.

She got hooked on running and asked me if she could run a marathon. I said I would allow her to run the Vancouver half marathon (last May 6) if she trained all winter and got herself ready to go. Based on her XC training I decided aerobic conditioning was P1, so beginning in November I had her running all easy runs at least 4 days per week, working up to one run of 90 min minimum and one of about 120 min. (long run) Most weeks were in the 50 to 70 km range, with the odd one higher. In Feb I changed things a bit by adding a weekly threshold run. Initially I had her doing 20 min, but we built that up to 45 min. By race time I thought she was capable of running 1:40 to 1:45, and that's where we set up her pacing. Luckily she ignored that and ran according to how she felt, and she managed 1:36 and change to take first place in her AG in a race of over 6,000 runners. She was 39th female overall and about 260th of all runners.

Concurrently to the HM she went out for track events this spring. Having never run track before (I think she tried 100 meters in Gr 9) she decided to focus on 1500 and 3000. Initially she ran about 11:30 for 3000 meters, and 5:20 for 1500. By the time of her regional HS event she was good enough to win both distances and also the 800, which she had never ran before. She was also on the 4 by 100 team, and she went to her Provincial track finals in early June in Ottawa. Clearly all that winter aerobic conditioning was allowing her to outrun any of the local competition who probably had very little base to draw on over the second half of most races.

Provincial track finals have the best HS runners in the province, including several girls already on the national team. We knew she had no chance to win at this level, (4:30 is a good 1500 time for senior girls and 9:30 is a good 3000 tome) but we thought she could PR if she ran smart. She decided against running the 800, (Her time was 2:34 and best times are around 2:00) so as to focus on the other two races. In the 1500 they had two heats, and she had to be top 6 in hers to make the final. Strategy was to go out with the lead girls and try to stay with them, using her aerobic strength to pull her through. It failed, and she finished last in her heat, but with a PR of 5:09, and with some very fast early laps. I am sure she would have gone under 5 min if she had run at the back and allowed the faster girls to pull her along. For the 3000 we decided to change strategy. She went out at the back of the pack and let the others go. The lead girl went out pretty fast, and most of the other girls tried to stay with her. They began to slow down badly over the second half and my daughter held pace (actually slowed down but at a better rate) and managed to pass a few girls, finishing 18 of 24 in 10:50, a new PR. She ran 3:23, 3:37, 3:50, which suggests her aerobic conditioning was not good enough for 3:23 pace, but still better than some of the other girls.

Unfortunately she is down with a strain fracture right now, but will be getting ready for a 5k race on Aug 26 before heading to university. I think she will be able to run under 19 min for this 5k if she can get back running soon, and then she is off to university XC at Guelph, which has been for the last 2 years the best women's team in Canada.

So I think the secret to her success is a lot of easy paced miles to build up her endurance, coupled with some medium (threshold) paced work to build a bit of power and stamina. She has always had a bit of speed, but she could never hold it for very long. (5k race at age 14) If she had done only what the coaches suggested I doubt very much if she would have made it to the provincial finals and I doubt if she would have set any PR's.

http://This message has been edited by tigger (edited Jul-13-2007).