Lydiard or Speed Endurance?

[MickTor]

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!

[Dynamo Dan]

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!

[IainR]

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.

[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.

[Dynamo Dan]

" 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?

[Mike T]

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.

[CL]

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.

[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. [/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.

[mr brightside]

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?

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.

[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.