Lydiard or Speed Endurance?

I was getting my overalls off after work today and i overheard some of the road runners from the company running club going on about how 'you've got to get the miles in'; and it got me wondering again about how you reconcile the performance gains with the potentially high degree of joint wear. From what i know of the club, they are basically 10k runners with the odd HM thrown in.

I've always considered this approach to be in line with Lydiard's approach, as he advocated that all under his program should be able to run a marathon regardless of their competing distance. Personally i prefer Seb Coe's method which i believe was known as Speed Endurance. It seems more logical to me to train at and below your competing distance, and there seems to be a good deal of focus on aerobic fitness through intervals of various lengths; though i guess sets of intervals may take you over your competing distance on occasions. It has been proven that interval training gives noticable boosts to V02 Max. Furthermore, i can't see how anyone but a professional athlete can hope to properly execute the complexities and give the required time input to the Lydiard method.

I can see that if you are a regular face in the FRA champs then you're going to need to train for AL races and do some equivalent milage, but for runners in the Bofra champs long slow runs must effectively be junk miles.

I would have to disagree Mr Brightside, Coe trained for events lasting either 1:4X mins or 3:3Xmins, massively different from the 15mins or so a Bofra is usually won in. Even when considering the downhill it still means 10mins of 'effort' running which is far closer to 5km as an equivalent. If you look at any half decent 5km runner they will be doing no less than 70-80mpw with most world class runners nearing 120mpw if not more. Aerobic development is unavoidable and there is no better way of attaining this than easy/steady miles ala Lydiard, infact most 1500m will do a fair distance and i'm sure Coe regularly went well over race distance. If you have a search this a good documentary on him on youtube. A good website for reference is www.runnerslife.co.uk it has a number of international runners from various event who post training and gives a great insight into exactly what they do week in week out.
It is believed the poor period of distance runners we appear to have just come out of is due to a theosophy of low mileage, back in the 80's (Golden Era) it was well accepted there were no short cuts and 100mpw was the norm.

I'm sure CL will be along any minute...

Steve Ovett won the Dartford Half Marathon 2 weeks before he set a British record for 1500m. A year later he won the Olympic 800m. Don't forget that Coe was almost a 400/800m runner, rather than the traditional 800/1500m specialist. His 400m best is nearly 2 seconds quicker than Ovett.

I don't believe that either approach is definitively right or wrong. Just different,

Why does it have to either or? Surely the sensible thing is to combine the two. A long run at a decent pace on the weekends a turbo session, a threshold and the odd steady run scattered in between. When the season starts in earnest race twice a week and run easy/bike easy in between.

That's what I'm going to try anyway.....

seb coe suplemented his training at times with long bike rides to the coast.
lydiard also advocated periodisation,blocks of specific training (hills and long and short speed sessions)based around what distance you planned to race at.

I have no idea of what either of these training methods entail but, if what you're saying is correct Mr B, all of my running is 'junk miles' :)

I know quite a few people who follow the "traditional" road club method of training for 2 fast flat road marathons per year (spring and autumn)
they "periodise" (as dylan said above) - i.e. bang in big blocks of 70-100M/wk, then, closer to the race, work in tempo/interval sessions

although I personally have never done the above (I would lose the will to live, doing that many road miles), I did find that, 2 years ago when I was ramping up my mileage for Bob Graham purposes (so most of my increased mileage was "BG shuffle" type stuff), I had some of my best ever race results at all distances/types without doing much/any race-specific training

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

I'm sure CL will be along any minute...

Steve Ovett won the Dartford Half Marathon 2 weeks before he set a British record for 1500m. A year later he won the Olympic 800m. Don't forget that Coe was almost a 400/800m runner, rather than the traditional 800/1500m specialist. His 400m best is nearly 2 seconds quicker than Ovett.

I don't believe that either approach is definitively right or wrong. Just different,

---

Coe's best 400m was 46.87 and Ovett's 47.5. There are claims Coe ran a 45 something in a relay but we can't really count that on a comparative basis because the athlete is already moving when crossing the starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steadyeddy

I would have to disagree Mr Brightside, Coe trained for events lasting either 1:4X mins or 3:3Xmins, massively different from the 15mins or so a Bofra is usually won in. Even when considering the downhill it still means 10mins of 'effort' running which is far closer to 5km as an equivalent. If you look at any half decent 5km runner they will be doing no less than 70-80mpw with most world class runners nearing 120mpw if not more. Aerobic development is unavoidable and there is no better way of attaining this than easy/steady miles ala Lydiard, infact most 1500m will do a fair distance and i'm sure Coe regularly went well over race distance. If you have a search this a good documentary on him on youtube. A good website for reference is www.runnerslife.co.uk it has a number of international runners from various event who post training and gives a great insight into exactly what they do week in week out.
It is believed the poor period of distance runners we appear to have just come out of is due to a theosophy of low mileage, back in the 80's (Golden Era) it was well accepted there were no short cuts and 100mpw was the norm.

---

According to an interview Said Aouita never ran further than 16km in training but in my estimation is the best 5000m runner ever. He used training methods that meant he didn't have to churn out 120mpw. Yes he was gifted in terms of having a body built for running fast but it was his methods that made him excel.

It is too easy to put Britain's present/past poor results down to a lack of mileage as I've shown with my example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

According to an interview Said Aouita never ran further than 16km in training but in my estimation is the best 5000m runner ever. He used training methods that meant he didn't have to churn out 120mpw. Yes he was gifted in terms of having a body built for running fast but it was his methods that made him excel.

It is too easy to put Britain's present/past poor results down to a lack of mileage as I've shown with my example.

---

Are you trying to suggest that SA had it right and every 5/10K runner since who does put in 120mpw is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

According to an interview Said Aouita never ran further than 16km in training but in my estimation is the best 5000m runner ever. He used training methods that meant he didn't have to churn out 120mpw. Yes he was gifted in terms of having a body built for running fast but it was his methods that made him excel.

It is too easy to put Britain's present/past poor results down to a lack of mileage as I've shown with my example.

---

Are you trying to suggest that SA had it right and every 5/10K runner since who does put in 120mpw is wrong?

When I was cycling at a high level training was all about building a base and then a short period of intense turbo work. After I stopped the coaches at British Cycling changed their approach to favour more quality over quantity and we all know what happened next........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

Are you trying to suggest that SA had it right and every 5/10K runner since who does put in 120mpw is wrong?

---

You've repeated your post Trog. In answer to your question I'd say any 5km runner doing 120mpw hasn't the slightest clue about the philosophy of training. Oh and for every runner you point to as proof of your argument I'll show you 100 runners who failed using the same methods. An intelligent approach means discovering methods of training that'll give the best results for the least amount of time invested. The reason for this attitude is simple: Who in their right mind wants to spend 2-3 hours pounding the pavement? Together with the negative consequences of such a regime like joint wear and tear, anxiety and other health problems, high mileage is fool's gold.

Aouita had a simple but effective formula, "if I feel good I go to track, if I don't feel good I don't go to track." Today's athletes go to the track even when they are knackered because they follow a schedule regardless of the negative consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

You've repeated your post Trog.

---

Ooops, I must have pushed the post button in double quick time.

120 mpw for a 5km runner on the face of it does look excessive, but of course is that this week, next week and every week, or just the first phase of the programme.

Being more specific, I am currently aiming for a race in late April of 12 plus miles with 2000 ft of climb. I am aiming to break 100 minutes. I have no intention of training anywhere near 100 mpw, 50 would be more realistic but I intend to have one run (out of 7) each week of at least 100 minutes.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

Ooops, I must have pushed the post button in double quick time.

120 mpw for a 5km runner on the face of it does look excessive, but of course is that this week, next week and every week, or just the first phase of the programme.

Being more specific, I am currently aiming for a race in late April of 12 plus miles with 2000 ft of climb. I am aiming to break 100 minutes. I have no intention of training anywhere near 100 mpw, 50 would be more realistic but I intend to have one run (out of 7) each week of at least 100 minutes.

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 mean 120 MPW at any time including training for a BG round. I would say 50 MPW or 5 hours was more like it with one or two harder sessions( a race is counted as a hard session) and a longer run. The main thing in my mind is to push the V02 as high as possible with relevant sessions and then add just enough endurance to enable you to sustain a high percentage of your V02 for the period of the race.

mo farrar runs 120 miles per week,his coach says the sessions that have given him the edge are the 3 sessions a week of weight training.
personally i think everyone is different and there training needs to reflect this.
as i am quite large build i found i had to run more to get the results.
when i was in my prime i was on 80 to 90 miles a week,with 2 speed,1 sustained and 1 long.
when i tried 100 miles a week i found another gear and improved more,but i couldnt cut the grass or decorate.i was tired all the time,but got pbs,
one of my training partners ran 40 miles per week and was always faster than me,thanks to his genes.
i was once talking to steve binns(commonwealth silver) who said he couldnt do more than 60 mpw,and when he tried to step it up he had to have 2 baths to try and recover.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steadyeddy

I would have to disagree Mr Brightside, Coe trained for events lasting either 1:4X mins or 3:3Xmins, massively different from the 15mins or so a Bofra is usually won in. Even when considering the downhill it still means 10mins of 'effort' running which is far closer to 5km as an equivalent. If you look at any half decent 5km runner they will be doing no less than 70-80mpw with most world class runners nearing 120mpw if not more. Aerobic development is unavoidable and there is no better way of attaining this than easy/steady miles ala Lydiard, infact most 1500m will do a fair distance and i'm sure Coe regularly went well over race distance. If you have a search this a good documentary on him on youtube. A good website for reference is www.runnerslife.co.uk it has a number of international runners from various event who post training and gives a great insight into exactly what they do week in week out.
It is believed the poor period of distance runners we appear to have just come out of is due to a theosophy of low mileage, back in the 80's (Golden Era) it was well accepted there were no short cuts and 100mpw was the norm.

---

I don't know the finer points of Coe's training, i just remember an interesting documentary which gave the impression he was not doing mega miles but quite the opposite- i believe this is Speed Endurance in a roundabout way. If most good 5000m runners are 70-80 mpw then i think they may be shortening their careers unnecessarily, if it gives them 5secs then so be it but this approach isn't ideal for recreational runners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

The main thing in my mind is to push the V02 as high as possible with relevant sessions and then add just enough endurance to enable you to sustain a high percentage of your V02 for the period of the race.

---

I agree Chris, this is basically what i would expect to be a sensible approach for folks like us. If some professional runners swear by benefits from high mpw then they can crack on, but recreational runners on the open scene should not be buying into statements such as, "you've got to get the miles in", as if it's a prerequisite for peak performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steadyeddy

Coe trained for events lasting either 1:4X mins or 3:3Xmins...

---

I don't actually know what these ratios mean, can you simplify?

Think he meant 1 minute forty something, and 3 minutes thirty something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

Being more specific, I am currently aiming for a race in late April of 12 plus miles with 2000 ft of climb. I am aiming to break 100 minutes. I have no intention of training anywhere near 100 mpw, 50 would be more realistic but I intend to have one run (out of 7) each week of at least 100 minutes.

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

---

Let me put my cards on the table, Trog.

I am currently aiming to be injury free and able to take up some training outside of my weekly short race. I have no aspirations beyond 10m in one go, this has been approved as sensible and realistically achievable by my physio, and wish to run no further than 16mpw. I hope to execute the following:

- Medium race every other weekend for stamina up to my milage limit of 10, short race in between.
- Midweek session 1, interval training with focus on effort not distance so maybe uphill.
- Midweek session 2, hard bike ride 18m local route; or hill reps max 4m (weather to dictate, i hate biking in the rain)

- No consecutive sessions, no long runs strict 16mpw, focus on discipline- drop session if ill or can't be arsed, full commitment at all times.

I've noticed there is a massive difference in my performance when i do something midweek and keep getting out regularly. I've had a crap year and been ill over xmas so managed 29.51 at Wansfell 2012. In 2011 when i was running every weekend and doing some biking midweek i ran 27.09. It's a massive difference and i suspect more yet could be wiped off that with a sensible, structured pattern of training and racing with no long runs needed.

From a performance point of view either argument could be convincing but only long runs get you out on the hill for long periods of time so I know which I prefer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark G

From a performance point of view either argument could be convincing but only long runs get you out on the hill for long periods of time so I know which I prefer!

---

:) The right answer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dylan

mo farrar runs 120 miles per week,his coach says the sessions that have given him the edge are the 3 sessions a week of weight training.
personally i think everyone is different and there training needs to reflect this.
as i am quite large build i found i had to run more to get the results.
when i was in my prime i was on 80 to 90 miles a week,with 2 speed,1 sustained and 1 long.
when i tried 100 miles a week i found another gear and improved more,but i couldnt cut the grass or decorate.i was tired all the time,but got pbs,
one of my training partners ran 40 miles per week and was always faster than me,thanks to his genes.
i was once talking to steve binns(commonwealth silver) who said he couldnt do more than 60 mpw,and when he tried to step it up he had to have 2 baths to try and recover.
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.

---

What made you conclude the 40MPW runner was beating you because of his genes? I was wondering whether you'd tell us what times (pbs) you were running on 80-90MPW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

I agree Chris, this is basically what i would expect to be a sensible approach for folks like us. If some professional runners swear by benefits from high mpw then they can crack on, but recreational runners on the open scene should not be buying into statements such as, "you've got to get the miles in", as if it's a prerequisite for peak performance.

---

It is true though Mr B, you have to get the miles in although that statement leaves the answer open ended. Is getting the miles in 2 miles, 20 miles or 200miles per week, Jimmy Ashworth style?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

It is true though Mr B, you have to get the miles in although that statement leaves the answer open ended. Is getting the miles in 2 miles, 20 miles or 200miles per week, Jimmy Ashworth style?

---

Out of interest what does your training week look like this time of year and in the midst of summer races? It must work because you're always up there mate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

Out of interest what does your training week look like this time of year and in the midst of summer races? It must work because you're always up there mate!

---

It's the same but recently I dropped some weight which has made me faster without making me fitter. I have in mind what sessions I need to do but I have ignored the time element in which to do them. I've done this so I take rest days when I need them and don't worry about meeting weekly quotas sessions etc.

There are 4 key sessions: steady runs 45-60minutes occasionally going to 90minutes; 20-30minute hard run or intervals; sprints; weight training. If I've raced and am racing the next weekend I often won't do any hard runs just a short weights session early on. If I'm jaded I take days off knowing I'll come back full of beans. Some of the above sessions I switch to the bike depending on what mood I'm in.

Oh I almost forgot the main ingredient, the one that makes the tough sessions effective........................guts! No amount of stollyisms ("I don't take this too seriously") will make a shred of difference if you aren't willing to push to the limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

It's the same but recently I dropped some weight which has made me faster without making me fitter. I have in mind what sessions I need to do but I have ignored the time element in which to do them. I've done this so I take rest days when I need them and don't worry about meeting weekly quotas sessions etc.

There are 4 key sessions: steady runs 45-60minutes occasionally going to 90minutes; 20-30minute hard run or intervals; sprints; weight training. If I've raced and am racing the next weekend I often won't do any hard runs just a short weights session early on. If I'm jaded I take days off knowing I'll come back full of beans. Some of the above sessions I switch to the bike depending on what mood I'm in.

Oh I almost forgot the main ingredient, the one that makes the tough sessions effective........................guts! No amount of stollyisms ("I don't take this too seriously") will make a shred of difference if you aren't willing to push to the limit.

---

Cheers Chris :D

Very interesting thread! I don't know all that much about other folks training and whatnot, but I do know that when a friend of mine advised I mix in some interval training and cross fit my running and over all fitness has improved. Doing things like Kelly's and pyramid workouts has helped me a lot. Whatever works for the individual. I think there's an element of trying what feels right or of interest and finding what works well.As mentioned different training will benefit different folks. This aint a one size fits all game is it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

No amount of stollyisms ("I don't take this too seriously") will make a shred of difference if you aren't willing to push to the limit.

---

Haha leave me out of it. I run for runnings sake rather than racings sake and only perhaps do a dozen races a year. Never the less when I race I go full on and, within my age group, do pretty well. That said I'll hold my hand up and admit that getting into the top 25% finishers of a fell race is good going for me. At least I enjoy all my running - I suspect that some of the hard nosed front of field racers might well hate every minute of it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickTor

Very interesting thread! I don't know all that much about other folks training and whatnot, but I do know that when a friend of mine advised I mix in some interval training and cross fit my running and over all fitness has improved. Doing things like Kelly's and pyramid workouts has helped me a lot. Whatever works for the individual. I think there's an element of trying what feels right or of interest and finding what works well.As mentioned different training will benefit different folks. This aint a one size fits all game is it!

---

I'm not running much at the moment, but I've started rock climbing 2 or 3 times a week and I think the overall strength it's giving me is really helping my running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

I'm not running much at the moment, but I've started rock climbing 2 or 3 times a week and I think the overall strength it's giving me is really helping my running.

---

Good work Dan, I have fancied climbing for years! One for down the line for me!
I also think feeling good about something and yourself and in general helps the running or whatever else you wish to succeed at. Success breeds success

I started martial arts last year and have been on a total buzz in ALL areas of my life. The whole lot has improved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickTor

Good work Dan, I have fancied climbing for years! One for down the line for me!
I also think feeling good about something and yourself and in general helps the running or whatever else you wish to succeed at. Success breeds success

I started martial arts last year and have been on a total buzz in ALL areas of my life. The whole lot has improved!

---

It's rude not to climb if you live in Sheffield or Manchester!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dylan

mo farrar runs 120 miles per week,his coach says the sessions that have given him the edge are the 3 sessions a week of weight training.
personally i think everyone is different and there training needs to reflect this.
as i am quite large build i found i had to run more to get the results.
when i was in my prime i was on 80 to 90 miles a week,with 2 speed,1 sustained and 1 long.
when i tried 100 miles a week i found another gear and improved more,but i couldnt cut the grass or decorate.i was tired all the time,but got pbs,
one of my training partners ran 40 miles per week and was always faster than me,thanks to his genes.
i was once talking to steve binns(commonwealth silver) who said he couldnt do more than 60 mpw,and when he tried to step it up he had to have 2 baths to try and recover.
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.

---

Not sure its genes.. I always find the mention of genes a tad of a cop out.. sorry :-)

For me the first thing is we have to enjoy training...if we don't enjoy it we lose motivation, the mere motivation of running well soon disapears, I think that's why we see people come on the seen.. do OK.. start doing fairly well, hit their plateau, struggle to get off.. maybe get injured drop off.. work back to the same point then quit.. getting off that plateau seems to be the hardest thing.. I think we all hit a natural plateau soon enough and then we have to train smarter, for some its simple miles for others quality..

Some enjoy the pain of hard sessions, I enjoy high mileage and the feeling of tiredness that gives, but I also enjoy food and drink.. So I need high mileage to stay even reasonably not huge...

I'm still normally fastest fatty..

But I think those who do the 40-50 mile weeks, train harder, smarter, eat better, drink more, sleep less... I know there is always that n = 1 person...

I'm similar though, 80-90 miles seems to keep me in decent shape, 100 shatters me..

I'm really not convinced there is any fool proof method of training.. One mans poison another mans nectar and all that..

Also a number of top fell runners will do 30-50 miles a week, but a lot also bike lots, plus most of their sessions are quality, not reps, but no slouch sessions.. I've ran with a few of them and its basically my race pace...

For me to run well I need to do more hard sessions, drink less, eat less, sleep more.. but I like plodding in the hills... in that respect CL is dead right.

" Not sure its genes.. I always find the mention of genes a tad of a cop out.. sorry :-) "

The trouble with the "running genes" is that we cannot directly see their effects, unlike, for example, height in basketball players ..... but our VO2 max, it's trainability, our running economy, and the % of VO2 max that we can sustain for a given distance are all mainly inherited. Sure, training is required to make the most of our genetic endowment - just like basketball players, no matter how tall, still need to train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

" Not sure its genes.. I always find the mention of genes a tad of a cop out.. sorry :-) "

The trouble with the "running genes" is that we cannot directly see their effects, unlike, for example, height in basketball players ..... but our VO2 max, it's trainability, our running economy, and the % of VO2 max that we can sustain for a given distance are all mainly inherited. Sure, training is required to make the most of our genetic endowment - just like basketball players, no matter how tall, still need to train.

---

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?

To run a 2.04 marathon you need a VO2 max in the 80s; even 2.30 needs one in around the high 60s. There will be the occasional person with fantastic running economy who has rather lower figures than these. The average VO2 max in the general population is around 45, so a 2.30 marathon runner already has a "genetic advantage". Noakes, in Lore of Running, gives the example of a keen runner with a VO2 max of 50 - no matter how hard or intelligently he trains he will not get his VO2 max above 57, and the best marathon time he can hope for is about 3.06.

The main point I was making which isn't being taken up is about efficiency of training. If a man can run 15 minutes for 5km off 10 hours of exercise but could have achieved the 15 minutes off 3hours then you'd have to say he was wasting a lot of effort and wasn't very smart or scientific in his approach. Now you could say - like one or two on here - what does it matter if he enjoys running long distances. Well it might not matter if he intends to remain in the sport for a short period but if he loves running he'll be in it for good. That's when it does matter because the extra time spent running can have serious implications for long-term (even short term)health.

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. It's all very well saying it won't happen to me but the truth is run too much and it will happen to you and maybe a lot sooner than you think. Then you'll have to spend what could be a large proportion of your life in a lot of discomfort. It's just not worth it when you can achieve the same results with less exercise. I also think a proper approach leaves you with more energy to do other things and have other interests.

[.

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. [/QUOTE]


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:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

It is true though Mr B, you have to get the miles in although that statement leaves the answer open ended. Is getting the miles in 2 miles, 20 miles or 200miles per week, Jimmy Ashworth style?

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

The main point I was making which isn't being taken up is about efficiency of training. If a man can run 15 minutes for 5km off 10 hours of exercise but could have achieved the 15 minutes off 3hours then you'd have to say he was wasting a lot of effort and wasn't very smart or scientific in his approach. Now you could say - like one or two on here - what does it matter if he enjoys running long distances. Well it might not matter if he intends to remain in the sport for a short period but if he loves running he'll be in it for good. That's when it does matter because the extra time spent running can have serious implications for long-term (even short term)health.

---

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.

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.