Lydiard or Speed Endurance?

It's hard to know how to translate road running training ideas to fell. Personally I think fell running requires more overall strength, arms,back and core as well as legs.

Overtraining is a real danger too as I found to my peril this year. Too many long races basically ruined me I was at the back of the field at one point after almost being in the top third at the start of the year.

Long races especially Lakeland Classics extract a toll on your entire body and I made the mistake of trying to do speed sessions straight after them! You start to get slower so you train a bit more and it becomes a vicious cycle until you struggle sleeping and have to stop completely.

Maybe it was a virus and not overtraining, but it's made me look at my training in a whole different way. To be honest with you it was a struggle not to give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

But how big a difference do genes make? Is it the difference between running a 2.30 marathon and running a 2.04?

My old cycling coach was an international track sprinter and ran a 2.30 something marathon. He's not genetically gifted for running believe me!

He worked hard and fulfilled his potential. Would you agree that genetically there's probably a bigger difference between my old coach and those running 2.04 than most marathon runners?

---

TBH I think one of the biggest things you can have is the ability to tolerate hard training.. be it steady 80 mile weeks or hard 40's... not many can..

I know many who have broken down on too much intensity too soon...

Maybe its acquired.. I've been competing at sport since the age of 9.. so almost 25 years of training most days..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

TBH I think one of the biggest things you can have is the ability to tolerate hard training.. be it steady 80 mile weeks or hard 40's... not many can..

I know many who have broken down on too much intensity too soon...

Maybe its acquired.. I've been competing at sport since the age of 9.. so almost 25 years of training most days..

---

Perhaps but I was in the GB track cycling squad in my late teens riding hundreds of miles week in week out and I broke down through overtraining this year....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

It's hard to know how to translate road running training ideas to fell. Personally I think fell running requires more overall strength, arms,back and core as well as legs.

Overtraining is a real danger too as I found to my peril this year. Too many long races basically ruined me I was at the back of the field at one point after almost being in the top third at the start of the year.

---

I agree with this but I also think fell running is much more forgiving on the body than road training in terms of overuse. I know from previous experience that every winter I start to pick up minor injuries and I attribute a lot of this to road speed training when it gets too dark to run the trails properly (for the majority of club members that is). I had to stop the winter speedwork this year and go off road again and my legs feel much better for it, even with quality stuff thrown in the mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

Overtraining is a real danger too as I found to my peril this year. Too many long races basically ruined me I was at the back of the field at one point after almost being in the top third at the start of the year.

---

I too have had this. I ran a solid first half of the year and did well at Holme moss, but it tired me for Borrowdale. I completed Borrowdale well outside what I should be capable of and pushed on to complete even when knackered. It's taken me several months to feel like I'm back to where I should be at this time of year and I suspect the hard long races did indeed take their toll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

[.

Two team-mates of mine have been forced to retire because of serious knee injuries caused by wear and tear, both in their forties. I've seen it also on a lot of people in their sixties. Even Lydiard - the name in the title of this thread - had to have knee replacements, no doubt caused by his marathon training.

---

Not convinced by this CL. It's not very scientific. What's the incidence in non-runners, lesser runners etc. You're normally a bit more specific than personal, anecdotal 'evidence' which fits with what you believe.

Having said that I think you are right about quality training over quantity.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your point. Both these runners have had scans or whatever showing worn cartlidge in knees and hips. I also know a very good fell runner who's had to finish because of arthritis in his hip, also in his 40s. These are scientific facts and I wouldn't say its illogical to lay the cause at running's door.

[QUOTE=mr brightside;520117]I reckon it depends upon your competetive distance; though even if you are a marathon runner one long session a week together with other training thrown in should only see you at about 40mpw max if you think the same way as i do. I don't know how many long runs per week marathon runners do, surely they can't exceed 1 or 2?
QUOTE]

If you never race more than an hour I don't see why you should train much more than an hour unless you are losing weight, or can only train on certain days. Of course if you want to run a marathon then it makes life easier if you run a bit further to condition. That can be done though in one or more sessions weeks before, not everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

I think there is a pathalogical problem with people running more miles to perform better in races, and a larger problem with this idea proliferating itself through magazines and little nuggets like the one i heard in the changing rooms on friday. Someone somewhere could probably prove to me that running an extra 50mpw on top of their normal program will give someone an edge, but it must come at a terrible cost.

Our dear friend Daz h did a lot of miles, but he did them on his bike and not on his feet, and as a Lakeland Classics runner he will have needed to prepare for the ultra longs knowing he could maintain his pace throughout. It's a shame he isn't available for comment on this thread.

---

Low body Weight is so significant for running. Often the mileage junkies are addicted to exercise for this reason. It keeps them skinny.

Beyond a certain amount and intensity of exercise there are no fitness gains to be had, as the body just cannot respond. A man running 100MPW may have responded to only 50MPW of proper training which means the other 50MPW was a complete waste of time. So back on the treadmill and getting nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

Run - The Lydiard way:

Middle Distance track - Men

First phase, for as long as possible -

M - 1 hr Fartlek
T - 1 1/2 hr Aerobic
W - 5 km Time trial
T - 1 1/2 hr Aerobic
F - 45 min Fartlek with hills
S - 10km Time trial
S - 1 1/2 hr (or more) Aerobic

Depending on your speed, that is not exactly 120 mpw nor is it devoid of fast running. This is also the build up phase, as you progress towards the track season the mileage drops and the speed work increases.

The "Crosscountry" schedule which I followed with reasonable results 20 ish years ago was not that different in the first phase. At the speeds I trained it equated to 60 to 70 mpw (I raced 10 miles under 60 min), during the 'continuation of racing' phase the only run over 45 min was the weekly 90 min 'jogging' after a the race day.


How far is a training mile?

A 10 mile run on the flat is obviously a far different beast than a 10 miler with a couple of thousand feet of climb in it.

---

But in the introduction to the schedules Lydiard advises additional running on top of these sessions; another two sessions per day to supplement the main ones. In this book he did move away from his earlier madness but not by much.

Mo Farahs' coach said in an interview, that in the build up to the Olympics he did zero sessions on the road, as it deadens the legs. So he ran upto 120 miles on the trails, ( he' s a closet fell runner) the track etc. but he also does alot on the zero gravity treadmills and underwater thingys he has access to. His USA mate could only handle a maximum of 100 miles per week. Plus those guys dont have proper jobs, kids to look after full time and decorating to do. He did say that to run a marathon some road milage would have to be done.

Happy New Year Mr. B.

It sounds like that you want to get the most out of limited training time. For the past 5 years or so I've maxed out at about 5 or 6 hours training a week (job, kids etc.) and haven't done bad on what some might consider to be too few miles. And that's not just in short BOFRA races too. It has been enough for good results in longer races like Rydal Round or Anni Waltz too. What I lose in time I have to make up in intensity so I don't do anything particularly steady and include a fair amount of interval work either as hill reps or on the turbo. About 2 years ago I found a great book which related pretty well to what I was already doing called "The Time-Crunched Cyclist" by Chris Carmichael. Although it is obviously a cycling book, the principles can easily be transferred to fell running. It is well worth a read. I tweaked my training based on its principles to good effect. With such limited time it acknowledges that there are limits. I wouldn't be able to race something like the Three Peaks well with such limited training, but that's fine. I enjoy running short / medium races. Most people infact do if you look through race results. I would lower the intensity of some sessions if I had more time to train, but that is the point, I don't have more time so I have to use the best of what time I have.

Hope to catch up with you at a race sometime soon

Harry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Not convinced by this CL. It's not very scientific. What's the incidence in non-runners, lesser runners etc. You're normally a bit more specific than personal, anecdotal 'evidence' which fits with what you believe.

Having said that I think you are right about quality training over quantity.

---

I don't understand your point. Both these runners have had scans or whatever showing worn cartlidge in knees and hips. I also know a very good fell runner who's had to finish because of arthritis in his hip, also in his 40s. These are scientific facts and I wouldn't say its illogical to lay the cause at running's door.[/QUOTE]

But its n =1 or 2 science....

You can find none runners who have had hip and knee replacements...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry H Howgill

Happy New Year Mr. B.

It sounds like that you want to get the most out of limited training time. For the past 5 years or so I've maxed out at about 5 or 6 hours training a week (job, kids etc.) and haven't done bad on what some might consider to be too few miles. And that's not just in short BOFRA races too. It has been enough for good results in longer races like Rydal Round or Anni Waltz too. What I lose in time I have to make up in intensity so I don't do anything particularly steady and include a fair amount of interval work either as hill reps or on the turbo. About 2 years ago I found a great book which related pretty well to what I was already doing called "The Time-Crunched Cyclist" by Chris Carmichael. Although it is obviously a cycling book, the principles can easily be transferred to fell running. It is well worth a read. I tweaked my training based on its principles to good effect. With such limited time it acknowledges that there are limits. I wouldn't be able to race something like the Three Peaks well with such limited training, but that's fine. I enjoy running short / medium races. Most people infact do if you look through race results. I would lower the intensity of some sessions if I had more time to train, but that is the point, I don't have more time so I have to use the best of what time I have.

Hope to catch up with you at a race sometime soon

Harry

---

Happy new year to you too Ali. If this year's KWL goes without a hitch, then i'll be looking to slowly introduce a weekday session for the Bofra season. I can just about see the light at the end of the tunnel with my knee problem but i'm going to be severely limited in terms of milage, which is ok because i favour hard work and quality over quantity. It's probably going to start with adding a short interval session per week with as little milage as possible, and i'm going to have to be prepared to knock it on the head if soreness starts up. Scout Scar went ok today, i felt fast, but there again i would do without any hills slowing me down! I need to nail the flat ones, because when Fairmile comes around it's going to be business as usual from there on in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

But its n =1 or 2 science....

You can find none runners who have had hip and knee replacements...

---

But I have Iain R, you just don't bother reading properly. So I won't waste my time writing it again.

Anyway you don't need science when you've got Hong Kong Phooey:

"what caused his knackered knees?
"was it knitting a picture of Rolf Harris into a woolen jumper?"
"was it playing the bells of Saint Mary's on his cuff links?"
"or was it running 100 MPW for 10 years?
"COULD BE!".................music: "Hong Kong Phooey, number one super guy, Hong Kong Phooey"............with a ya ya, chop, chop, put your cape and mask on.

Christopher while in general I agree with your principle of training, train hard, recover, train hard again.

From personal experience of arthritis in the knees it is the opposite result to what you post, although may be it depends on the mileage? No running no good, too much running no good, moderation in all things?????

My Grandfather, had arthritis in his knees all the time I knew him, my father, arthritis in his knees from his 30s, both brothers the same, son 25 already having knee problems and yet none of these did anyrunning, father a little football in his teens and twenties, son rugby in his teens and early 20s. Both brothers no sport. Me, arthritis in my knee at 40, I was told by phyiso do not stop running and do your exercises, did exercises and do even more running now and at 48 I am pain freein my knee.

ATB

Tahr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

Christopher while in general I agree with your principle of training, train hard, recover, train hard again.

From personal experience of arthritis in the knees it is the opposite result to what you post, although may be it depends on the mileage? No running no good, too much running no good, moderation in all things?????

My Grandfather, had arthritis in his knees all the time I knew him, my father, arthritis in his knees from his 30s, both brothers the same, son 25 already having knee problems and yet none of these did anyrunning, father a little football in his teens and twenties, son rugby in his teens and early 20s. Both brothers no sport. Me, arthritis in my knee at 40, I was told by phyiso do not stop running and do your exercises, did exercises and do even more running now and at 48 I am pain freein my knee.

ATB

Tahr

---

I've never agreed with that sentiment 'moderation in all things.' Is a moderate amount of cyanide good for people? Anyway I'm not at odds with the cause of your arthritis because you say it wasn't caused by running. What I am at odds with is this idea that there aren't a lot of people with joint disorders who have got these problems by overdoing the exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dylan

i dont know if you remember jimmy ashworth(think 2.10 marathon)jimmy used to be in correspondence with arthur lydiard,
jim would run 200 miles a week,the mileage suited him.
colin moore(sub 44 mins 10 miler)would do 50 miles a week all of quality and would beat jimmy by a good 3 minutes over 10 miles.
as said everyone is different.

---

Love to know when Colin Moore went under 44min for 10 miles - It would still be a world record!:rolleyes:

It'd be interesting to know how the top fell runners train who need to be very good at 4 miles races and 15-23 miles races and ones in between. Very hard to apply a single method or theory to that I'd have thought.

I suppose there are generally gaps between the races, but not massive, like the gap between Blisco and Wasdale this year! Not long enough to really switch your focus and method of training.

(I mean those going for the Champs.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What I am at odds with is this idea that there aren't a lot of people with joint disorders who have got these problems by overdoing the exercise.

---

I don't agree with this at all CL. I'm running nowadays like never before (approx 200 miles a month all off road) and having just hit the grand old age of 56 and, having played football and then done a completely bonkers form of 'hong kong fuey' for years while younger, I have no joint disorders at all (that I know of). If anything my joints feel better than ever. All of my injuries from running have come from twisting ankles and knees over rough ground and descending like a mental case, which I tend to try and refrain from nowadays.

I read something on the internet a couple of years ago (so it must be true :) ) about running not giving joint problems in fact. I can't now find the article in question but I did find this one.

I do agree with you on the need to put effort in and that the only way to run faster is to (duh!) run faster. I do think that quite a few slower runners forget this solution though because its too painful :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

It'd be interesting to know how the top fell runners train who need to be very good at 4 miles races and 15-23 miles races and ones in between. Very hard to apply a single method or theory to that I'd have thought.

I suppose there are generally gaps between the races, but not massive, like the gap between Blisco and Wasdale this year! Not long enough to really switch your focus and method of training.

(I mean those going for the Champs.)

---

There was a really interesting article linked to from a thread on here a while ago about Kenny Stuart's training. I'm pretty sure he still holds the records for Ennerdale and Wansfell, so definitely fits the bill of excelling at the short and long stuff. I think he ran a pretty amazing road marathon time too. I don't remember much about the article, but I've a feeling he wasn't a "big" mileage trainer. Interesting comparrison with the likes of Billy Bland and Joss Naylor who according to legend just piled on the miles day after day over the fells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hank

There was a really interesting article linked to from a thread on here a while ago about Kenny Stuart's training. I'm pretty sure he still holds the records for Ennerdale and Wansfell, so definitely fits the bill of excelling at the short and long stuff. I think he ran a pretty amazing road marathon time too. I don't remember much about the article, but I've a feeling he wasn't a "big" mileage trainer. Interesting comparrison with the likes of Billy Bland and Joss Naylor who according to legend just piled on the miles day after day over the fells.

---

Actually I think Kenny Stuart then went on to fall foul to some kind of over training bug - he tried to convert to high road mileage and marathon running didn't he and over time it all went tits up? That though is proof that we all work in different ways.

Page 33 onwards: http://www.gorphwysfa.org/Gorphwysfa...nal%202003.pdf

70-80 miles a week for fell racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

It'd be interesting to know how the top fell runners train who need to be very good at 4 miles races and 15-23 miles races and ones in between. Very hard to apply a single method or theory to that I'd have thought.

I suppose there are generally gaps between the races, but not massive, like the gap between Blisco and Wasdale this year! Not long enough to really switch your focus and method of training.

(I mean those going for the Champs.)

---

But you don't really change your focus apart from adding some longer runs. I think some runners suffer from flat earth syndrome. If they have a 20 mile race and have only covered 10 miles in one run, they consider the 10.01 mile point as a place where their legs will somehow cease to function. It doesn't happen like that. Some short sessions can be so effective as to have a dramatic carry through effect in terms of stamina.

Hard gardening is the secret

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I don't agree with this at all CL. I'm running nowadays like never before (approx 200 miles a month all off road) and having just hit the grand old age of 56 and, having played football and then done a completely bonkers form of 'hong kong fuey' for years while younger, I have no joint disorders at all (that I know of). If anything my joints feel better than ever. All of my injuries from running have come from twisting ankles and knees over rough ground and descending like a mental case, which I tend to try and refrain from nowadays.

I read something on the internet a couple of years ago (so it must be true :) ) about running not giving joint problems in fact. I can't now find the article in question but I did find this one.

I do agree with you on the need to put effort in and that the only way to run faster is to (duh!) run faster. I do think that quite a few slower runners forget this solution though because its too painful :D

---

You're missing the point entirely. You are telling us there are no health consequences in overdoing the running over what could be a short or long period. I know there are and I only need one example to demonstrate the principle. I've given it. Now you might be lucky and get away with it or you might not but at least it should be considered when deciding how much training to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hank

There was a really interesting article linked to from a thread on here a while ago about Kenny Stuart's training. I'm pretty sure he still holds the records for Ennerdale and Wansfell, so definitely fits the bill of excelling at the short and long stuff. I think he ran a pretty amazing road marathon time too. I don't remember much about the article, but I've a feeling he wasn't a "big" mileage trainer. Interesting comparrison with the likes of Billy Bland and Joss Naylor who according to legend just piled on the miles day after day over the fells.

---

There was a great article on him in the Bill Smith collection of articles in the last Fell Runner mag. Variety of terrain, distance and speed seemed to be a part of his weekly plan, at least during his fell running days. It was really interesting.

It was interesting to compare his approach to Gavin Bland who was also in the pamphlet (interview from a good few years ago).

I find the different approaches intriguing.

So much to debate about with this topic, its as clear as mud really. Not one of us is built the same, and not one of us will have the same results from the same training regime, some maybe able to physically handle 80/100mile, most simply would never cope with that mileage and would be forever injured.
I like the CL thinking of training 'smart', but how do you train 'smart' for a race thats going to take you 2hr30min to run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

But you don't really change your focus apart from adding some longer runs. I think some runners suffer from flat earth syndrome. If they have a 20 mile race and have only covered 10 miles in one run, they consider the 10.01 mile point as a place where their legs will somehow cease to function. It doesn't happen like that. Some short sessions can be so effective as to have a dramatic carry through effect in terms of stamina.

---

It does make sense. My own experience of that is doing the L50 but with my longest runs beforehand having been 18m/2 hours and a bit. I definitely felt the main thing lacking was a few longer days out. But the carry through effect was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

You're missing the point entirely. You are trying to tell us is there are no health consequences to overdoing the running over what could be a short or long period. I know there are and I only need one example to demonstrate the principle. I've given it. Now you might be lucky and get away with it or you might not but at least it should be considered when deciding how much training to do.

---

You quoted two runners who had to retire early through 'wear and tear' to their knees, which you put down to over training. Surely there could have been other reasons also - for instance most cartilage and ligament problems stem from twisting injuries (or contact in contact sports) and its not like fell running can't cause those. In fact you could argue those who run the maddest over rough ground (to win) also run a huge risk of ending their running career early. Shouldn't you also be arguing for every one to take it steady to avoid injury? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

It'd be interesting to know how the top fell runners train who need to be very good at 4 miles races and 15-23 miles races and ones in between. Very hard to apply a single method or theory to that I'd have thought.

I suppose there are generally gaps between the races, but not massive, like the gap between Blisco and Wasdale this year! Not long enough to really switch your focus and method of training.

(I mean those going for the Champs.)

---

I imagine if you live in the mountains/hills, you quickly develop the ability to leg it up a short steep hill quickly, and equally you would be at home going for a longer run through the hills, so each race would essentially come alike. Got to be a huge advantage having ready acssess to the fells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

You quoted two runners who had to retire early through 'wear and tear' to their knees, which you put down to over training. Surely there could have been other reasons also - for instance most cartilage and ligament problems stem from twisting injuries (or contact in contact sports) and its not like fell running can't cause those. In fact you could argue those who run the maddest over rough ground (to win) also run a huge risk of ending their running career early. Shouldn't you also be arguing for every one to take it steady to avoid injury? ;)

---

My understanding is twisting is more likely to cause ligament damage, unless there is additional impact. Any how it doesn't matter. Friction causes wear in all things. Synovial fluid is there to protect but it'll only do so much just like oil on a chain. The more you move the more things are worn down. That's why athletes should find efficient training methods that reduce the wear and tear.

its worth adding that a lot of past(older) runners who retire through injury were training in very basic training shoes,plimsoles in some cases,
and in the 60/70 and 80s used to race everything from track to road to fell.
so most of the training was done on the road as the safe base terrain.
then there was not as much access to the fells,footpaths were not as established or marked as they are now and maps were very poor in detail.
when i first started racing on the fells in the early 80s,75 runners was a big field,the following week at a road race you would also see the same faces from the fells plus some out and out road racers,then you would see the odd bod at a track meet.
i think today with a greater understanding of training,the inclusion of hrms,better awareness of training routes,gps and well researched running shoes we have become less injury prone.
but,we have got slower too.
the times i achieved finishing in the top 50 then would give me a place in the top 20 today,if not higher,why???????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hank

There was a really interesting article linked to from a thread on here a while ago about Kenny Stuart's training. I'm pretty sure he still holds the records for Ennerdale and Wansfell, so definitely fits the bill of excelling at the short and long stuff. I think he ran a pretty amazing road marathon time too. I don't remember much about the article, but I've a feeling he wasn't a "big" mileage trainer. Interesting comparrison with the likes of Billy Bland and Joss Naylor who according to legend just piled on the miles day after day over the fells.

---

How long was Billy's career though?

It's a tad n = 1 science again though anyway..

Just thought BB bowed out quite early? I know others still run and do well and that BB is still active..

Colin Donelly is some longevity.. winning races for what? across 5 decades? I bet he was winning in his teens, twenties, thirties, fourties and fifties... wonder what his training schedule was..

Interesting though Colin wasn't one of these who just focussed on the fells, did XC through the winter, but also believed the odd super long event helped the rest of your running...

His 3000ers record deserves serious attention off todays top runners to show just how good he was. Even the records he doesn't hold around North Wales, he's ran close to the best times...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

If you are suggesting that I can achieve my aim with far less or smarter, I am all ears and will happily be your Guinea pig

---

I did not realise that I should be using my eyes rather than my ears until I saw this on another thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaunaneto

I'm sure Christopher Leigh will recommend 'The Intelligent Athlete' :wink:

---

My mate google eventually pointed me in the right direction after a few false starts.

A number of forum members reported to purchasing the book over a year ago, I would be very interested in hearing some feedback.

And , no I am not trying to knock Chris's ideas, indeed I have just pressed the 'purchase now' now button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

I did not realise that I should be using my eyes rather than my ears until I saw this on another thread:



My mate google eventually pointed me in the right direction after a few false starts.

A number of forum members reported to purchasing the book over a year ago, I would be very interested in hearing some feedback.

And , no I am not trying to knock Chris's ideas, indeed I have just pressed the 'purchase now' now button.

---

Thanks for that Trog. I called my book by its name not because you have to be a genius to understand it but because you do have to be prepared to think through the ideas and apply them to yourself. That won't be easy for some because many of the ideas require a basic grasp of physics. Unfortunately, unlike most training books, I couldn't leave these physical principles out, to do so would be to contradict its purpose.

The book covers all the key ideas in training and explains why you should train in a certain way, what you should be trying to achieve; it differentiates the various methods. I was told by one person who has read it that it was a weight training book for runners. That made me smile because being a runner that person would see it that way. Actually though it is a book for all athletes in any sport who want to train for either speed, strength or endurance or a combination of all three. Yes, in some chapters I write from a running angle but actually the principles are universal and can be applied to any sport, hence its title.

Anyway I hope you enjoy it and the difference in style over conventional training books.

Anyway back onto the issue. I think some are trying to imply that I am calling for more shorter, harder, anaerobic sessions as a replacement for long runs. I'm not and as Iain R has pointed out this can be over done as well, with far worse consequences than too many long slow runs. What I'm saying is firstly forget about cramming so many sessions into a day or week. Forget it! Instead have a list of hard sessions that are key and fill the time gap between with easier aerobic or rest periods. Take as long as necessary between hard sessions and when you feel strong again hit another hard session. This is the problem with all schedules in books-including mine(which are a guide) - they cannot say when you will be ready for another session and if you just blindly follow their advice you'll probably be worn out in a couple of weeks.

Excellent post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Anyway I hope you enjoy it and the difference in style over conventional training books.

---

Cheers Chris,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaunaneto

Excellent post

---

Seconded. When you see new research published on training methods it seems to support the benefits of high intensity interval training, neural training and weight training for indurance sport. Which is what CL has advocated for a while but doesn't use those terms (unless I've misunderstood him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

This is the problem with all schedules in books-including mine(which are a guide) - they cannot say when you will be ready for another session and if you just blindly follow their advice you'll probably be worn out in a couple of weeks.

---

In the main modern books (not read Chris's yet) tend to just give a programme without the full detail.

Hard sessions, with a long run, indoor training and a rest day has been with us since the 50's. Indeed Franz Stampfl* was saying for 3 & 6 mile events, do 4 Interval days per week.

He gave the progression though, so in November you would do 15 x 400 in x seconds, Dec would be a couple of seconds faster and by May (the start of the track season then) you would be doing 20 x 400 slightly faster than your expected racing pace.

Irrespective of how you train: If you intend to do the same in 2013 as you did in 2012, 11 & 10 you cannot expect any improvement.


*Franz Stampfl on running, first published 1955, Forward by Roger Bannister, introduction by Chris Brasher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

Seconded. When you see new research published on training methods it seems to support the benefits of high intensity interval training, neural training and weight training for indurance sport. Which is what CL has advocated for a while but doesn't use those terms (unless I've misunderstood him).

---

You can get very good or equal results without doing intervals. If you did that though you'd have to substitute those sessions with time trials and weight training to develop or maintain anaerobic capacity. In one of Seb Coe's books his physiologist encourages him to keep up the weight training for a longer period before racing. He explains that it is required to develop the mitochondria in the muscles. You see running will not develop these power houses to the same degree as proper weight training.

I think weight training is overlooked by many athletes because the guidance and instruction in this area is very poor. They go to the gym lift a weight a few times, roll around on a ball, chat with their mates etc. So they end up getting no results and say to themselves and others " I tried weights but it just didn't work." Women avoid it because they think it'll make them bulky when instead it'll carve them into Coco Chanels. I'm not saying weight training is easy, it's not, it's the hardest training you'll do but it'll make you a better runner from as little as 10 minutes a week. You just can't over do it that's all.