Lydiard or Speed Endurance?

[Roy Scott]

Not sure i completely agree. Endurance events are aerobic by nature. Renato Canova a famous Italian marathon coach advocates building aerobic power and aerobic resistance initially. ie 10k training plus moderate paced long runs. When these are developed his training program then aims to extend this aerobic power at race effort. i.e. Intervals get longer and more of them. Long runs get faster. But none of this would be near max heart rate which burns glycogen like a fire and is not desireable for an endurance athlete.


Indeed, a lot of endurance events will involve burning glycogen and fat which means that the athlete should train at these (moderate) intensities so the body adapts to this exact fuel mixture.

You need to train hard sure and you need to teach your body to flush out lactate during hill intervals.

And no matter how much bottle you have, the biggest determinant of how big a session you can manage, is the size of the aerobic house youre living in. If your aerobic house is fully built (like elites standing on skyscapers) then the training should be mainly specific (and hard). If it isnt (like most fell runners here) then most gains can be made by the huge aerobic stimulus of a big increase in mileage over a period of several months.
That said, if people cant do more mileage (e.g time constraints) then they could potentially start making training more specific if potential aerobically development is constrained.
That may be the case for many people, but its not because training harder is beter, its because the best option (a big aerobic stimulus) is not available. And from my experience (in the past thank god) doing a 100ish miles week after week of different fast aerobic paces in a constant state of fatigue is hard training. Not many individual runs are punishing...but the volume is hard. I did specific training later but the ratio was 80:20. and that was about right.

These debates go round and round in circles because everyone knows an approach that seemed to work that a coach, athlete or they used at some point in their athletic career. So it is impossible to come to a sound consensus.

I doubt many on here are doing the maximum amount of training their body can cope with. Therefore there is potential for improvement. Training adaptation and performing better for most would be akin to a tube of toothpaste; where ever you squeeze the tube from you will get some out. However if you want to get every last bit of paste/potential out you have to be clever and roll it from the end. The best way to do this is the method I have suggested. I know this because the vast majority of elite endurance athletes do the same. Now this does not mean that Bob round the corner wont improve by doing moderate intensity runs ever over day, it just means that he wont go as far with the potential he has.

Work within the range of 85-100% Max HR is essential, and you have to be able to perform in these sessions. Not half baked because you are trying to get to 100 miles for the week. Some elite Marathon runners can run a whole marathon at 85-90% of their max heart rate, so ambling along at 70% is a waste of time.

Now the aerobic base you talk of is mainly a result of two physiological adaptations. 1 - An increase in mitochondria density 2 - Increase efficiency of fat metabolism. These two can both be achieved at 50-60% of max heart rate, i.e. an easy run.

The fuel mix sentence makes little sense to me I am afraid. What ever intensity you run at you will burn both Fat and Glycogen, its just the proportions that change.

[andy k]

Turlough, i agree with you
I agree with Roy
In fact most of the posts in this thread are pretty sensible, all are part of a big physiological jigsaw and the most relevant parts of the jigsaw to each person depends on their fitness, their aims and the time they have available.

[PiesAreGood]

Hmm, so is the general consensus then that for fell training, the key sessions are:
a) Long run
b) Hard pacey run at race pace ish (tempo or threshold or whatever you want to call it)
c) Hill rep session

What do people reckon about weight training? In your book CL, you are pretty keen on weights - do you reckon a weights session would help fell training - I am thinking that hill reps would be a good weights session for the legs?

[LissaJous]

What do people reckon about weight training? In your book CL, you are pretty keen on weights - do you reckon a weights session would help fell training - I am thinking that hill reps would be a good weights session for the legs?

I've been reading all this with interest. I could find much to say I'm sure, but for now, just thisl:

When I saw your (a), (b) and (c), I was about to add:
(d) Weights training

And then I saw the rest of your post!

Weights training is one factor that has given me a major boost in form ever since end 2009. I think it's (almost) indispensable. Small number of reps, and high weight (for a runner), but nothing like the kgs that bodybuilders would lift. It doesn't need to take long.

The hill reps that runners tend to do are too long to have the same effect.

Last year, with access to some lovely, very steep mountains for training, my weights training did get dropped as I moved towards my competition season, as my muscles were exhibiting similar fatigue from intense (continuous) training up (down?) the mountains. But very possibly I should have fitted in a few-week block including weights training mid-season.

I also think weights *could* be more important for women, and protein in recovery drinks *could* be more important for women (I use a high protein all-in-one after every training session), as women need to work harder to build muscle mass / start from a lower base. But I don't have any references to cite, just a rational but personal belief.

Lauren J

[PiesAreGood]

Thanks for sharing that LJ, its interesting to read.

[IainR]

I've b

I also think weights *could* be more important for women, and protein in recovery drinks *could* be more important for women (I use a high protein all-in-one after every training session), as women need to work harder to build muscle mass / start from a lower base. But I don't have any references to cite, just a rational but personal belief.

Why did you go for small reps high weight? I'd have thought it would be exactly the opposite for a runner? Just intuitively, no idea if that's right though..

Maybe.. but I also think its so variable.. some blokes may need to.. some won't..

I don't know if its just down to our history in sports, but I build muscle quickly, so the last thing I want to do is add anymore weight. I've been a good 10 kg's heavier in the past when I did weights for football and rugby, and also climbed a bit, but still haven't lost as much upper body muscle as I'd have liked too for running.

I like reading people's training diaries just to see the huge variability in training. One of the top 100k runners does a lot of his training at 8:30-9:00 min mileing, yet in a 100k, he'll run the whole 62 miles close to 7 min mileing. I think mentally I'd get fatigued being out for that long, going that slow, unless I was on nice trails or with people. He also does a fair amount of weights and then track sessions, so very much easy or hard in his running. He's a 2:30 something marathoner so anything close to 9 min mileing is a good 50% slower than his marathon pace..

I find it interesting the top runners who train largely on their bikes, but when you talk to them most of them have a history of running decent mileage before replacing a lot of running with bike work.

[noel]

Maybe.. but I also think its so variable.. some blokes may need to.. some won't..

I don't know if its just down to our history in sports, but I build muscle quickly, so the last thing I want to do is add anymore weight. I've been a good 10 kg's heavier in the past when I did weights for football and rugby, and also climbed a bit, but still haven't lost as much upper body muscle as I'd have liked too for running.

I completely agree. We're all different and you need to tailor you training to take this into account.

I'm the opposite. I find it very hard to put on muscle mass. This helps in one respect as I'm naturally very skinny. I've lost almost all the upper body strength which I developed over about 10 years of climbing.

I could probably do with some more quads weights work. I've always shied away from this in the past, as I don't know what I'm doing and don't want to injure myself. Instead I've found very steep hill reps on a heavy bike seems to have the same effect.

[Tuffer]

1. I like reading people's training diaries just to see the huge variability in training. One of the top 100k runners does a lot of his training at 8:30-9:00 min mileing, yet in a 100k, he'll run the whole 62 miles close to 7 min mileing. I think mentally I'd get fatigued being out for that long, going that slow, unless I was on nice trails or with people. He also does a fair amount of weights and then track sessions, so very much easy or hard in his running. He's a 2:30 something marathoner so anything close to 9 min mileing is a good 50% slower than his marathon pace..

2. I find it interesting the top runners who train largely on their bikes, but when you talk to them most of them have a history of running decent mileage before replacing a lot of running with bike work.

And to quote Roy Scott too - "Work within the range of 85-100% Max HR is essential, and you have to be able to perform in these sessions. Not half baked because you are trying to get to 100 miles for the week. Some elite Marathon runners can run a whole marathon at 85-90% of their max heart rate, so ambling along at 70% is a waste of time.

Now the aerobic base you talk of is mainly a result of two physiological adaptations. 1 - An increase in mitochondria density 2 - Increase efficiency of fat metabolism. These two can both be achieved at 50-60% of max heart rate, i.e. an easy run."

So it's a hard or easy approach in the training, the medium sessions just make you tired, this makes sense to me and something i suffered from, running a hardish medium session on a Tuesday, and not recovered to make best use of the track session on a Thursday. Now do try to be rested for Thursday's and prepare the head for a hard session.

Learning to enjoy the easy running sessions helps, i find no pressure to run at a particular pace makes it enjoyable and coming having done a run with ease is great too.

For those who like a blast at a hard medium pace, just go out and enjoy.

[fellgazelle]

When I saw your (a), (b) and (c), I was about to add:
(d) Weights training

And then I saw the rest of your post!

Weights training is one factor that has given me a major boost in form ever since end 2009. I think it's (almost) indispensable. Small number of reps, and high weight (for a runner), but nothing like the kgs that bodybuilders would lift. It doesn't need to take long.

Lauren J

Hi LJ,
What frequency would you recommend for weights sessions, e.g. once/twice per week etc.?
Also would you include weights sessions in addition to your running training or would you replace a run with a weights session?

[LissaJous]

What frequency would you recommend for weights sessions, e.g. once/twice per week etc.?
Also would you include weights sessions in addition to your running training or would you replace a run with a weights session?

Hi FG, I'd definitely aim for 3 sessions a week for a couple of months while you're using it as training, then probably 1/week to keep it ticking over.

When I was using the gym for weights (and this was in deep winter when I don't train well outside), I used to do my weights routines round the gym, then immediately on to the treadmill for one of my (slow-speed/uphill) interval sessions. Taken together there was an element of metabolic training to it all. Now I have some free weights at home, I more often do the lifting a while after training, but not immediately after, and not after a very intense session, especially not if this was high impact.

If people want to know more I'll put it in a new thread (I didn't see a recent old thread?). I don't claim to be authoritative on the subject either. I can tell you that Graeme Woodward is!

Why did you go for small reps high weight? I'd have thought it would be exactly the opposite for a runner? Just intuitively, no idea if that's right though..

Maybe.. but I also think its so variable.. some blokes may need to.. some won't..

Hi Iain,
If you go for low-weight / lots of reps, you may as well just go for a run ~ you're not creating a significantly different stimulus
(Although of course beginners at weights should start well within their comfort range before they starting to push the limit, and yes some of the reasons for doing weights work still apply to many-reps, and yes, for support muscles not directly trained by running, I may well go for 3x10 or 2x20 reps rather than pushing the limit on x3s or x5s, especially on things like leg-curl and hip adductor machines which can very easily cause strains (hamstring, groin respectively) ~ I almost invariably use free weights and body-weight exercises these days, but I think machines are a good starting point for anyone).

Also, agreed, some people put on muscle very readily, and others (men & women) don't, so it's different things for different people. Between very steep hill reps, cycling, and weights, I'd say the most important factor in making a choice is that you have to be motivated to go and do it 3 times a week.

Specific advantages of weights include, however:

1. Teaching body to use high proportion of muscle fibres
2. Doing this over a large ROM (Range of Movement)
3. Applying force eccentrically and concentrically (imagine your quads as you first sit down slowly into a squat, and then stand up again)
4. Building support muscles that aid technique and injury prevention but that are not directly worked in normal training
5. Reducing muscle imbalance (eg hamstrings vs quads)
6. Training fast and slow twitch fibres that may not be activated in your normal training (by using slow and also explosive weights moves)