Lydiard or Speed Endurance?

[fellgazelle]

Thanks LissaJous, some really useful info in this thread.

[CL]

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?

Yes it is a weight session because you are moving body weight against gravity, however doing that will not give you the same results as using added weight in extreme exercises. In hill reps the range of movement and resistance the individual muscles encounter is much lower than high intensity weight training with added weight.

As I explained in my book the whole point to conventional weight training for endurance athletes is to produce a beneficial effect from a tiny fraction of work. For example, before the EPO period the fastest anyone could run the 10k was around 27.30. Some of the guys running under 28 minutes were running between 70 and 100 MPW. Said Aouita who was heavily influenced in his training methods by Coe, at his first attempt ran under 27.30, yet he never ran more than 15 km in training. So, how did he do it? The answer is he developed his resistance to muscular fatigue in the gym, by training his legs ( and actually his whole body) with weights. He used both free weights and machines and the exercises he chose were properly hard. None of this rolling around on those useless balls.

In untrained (in a weight training context this includes runners) people weight training develops new blood vessels that increases the rate of fuel and oxygen into muscles. It also increases flexibility that goes along way to improving efficiency. It does lots of other things as well that steady state training cannot duplicate. BUT it cannot do these things if the volume of training is too high. That's the mistake nearly everyone makes. They assume weight training is aerobics and if they go to the gym for an hour instead of running, they think they have to spend an hour lifting weights. Then all that happens is because they can't work hard for that period they naturally drop the intensity and consequently the results.

For proper results weight training has to be hard and short. The exercises need to be full range and the speed has to be reasonably high. Don't use one limb when you can use two together and work long enough to deplete some of your 'strength reserve'.

Finally re-read my chapter on 'intensity' and 'training for strength.' Everything you need to know is in there.

[CL]

Talking of weight training. I think the rep range of an exercise is very important. If the weight is too high then the speed and reps will be too low and you just won't dig deep enough into your reserves for the best results; however if you use too little weight you'll not be able to tire the muscles quickly enough and you'll be at it a long time.

The concept of training to failure has been taken up over the past 40 years as being one of the most important factors in weight training. Whilst I agree it is useful basing all weight training on this idea, it does have its shortcomings. You see if training to failure was all that mattered then why not go to the gym do one hard rep on each exercise then go home? Won't get results though.The rep range is important but to understand that you have to understand the 'strength reserve,' and that is anything but easy as I've realised in the past couple of years.

[LissaJous]

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.

Back to the thread topic, and I do love this quote. Spot on, with a caveat though ~ if training has to hurt (or be very hard) to give results, then how do you differentiate between fatigue that requires a day off / gentle session, and fatigue/less than 100% recovery that means you can still train? I rarely train at 100% recovery (as that would imply race-tapering and missing too many sessions).

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.

I do call my training 'adaptive', along lines Chris says here. As different parts of the body may be at a different (subjective) state of recovery, I may also choose which hard session to go for depending on how my body is feeling. In the past especially, I would run very high intensity uphill treadmill intervals, which I could manage while calf or hamstring strains healed. Also, I do not plan days off, but I do take a rest day when one is needed.

It's been interesting reading this thread because
(a) when I showed a coach my first training log a few years back, for a discussion about the interval work I had developed, he asked How do you get faster when so many of your training runs are steady?! Not in any case being widely read, I was slightly indignant and wanted to say that being marked steady only meant it being 2 or 3 minutes slower than a hard effort! And indeed I was setting PBs even on runs marked as steady!
(b) inspired by

When you collate the most effective global endurance programmes, i.e. those with used by the elite of endurance, there is only one single theme running through them. That theme is that when they work hard they really, really work hard, close to their maximum heart rate. Everything around that is done at an almost pedestrian pace. There is no, or very little moderate (or no man's land as I like to call it) training.

So if you are an athlete looking to improve, you may as well drop your moderate runs and save your chemical reserves for the tough stuff that makes a difference. Unless of course you can not muster the bottle to work that hard.

I found an article http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.pdf about the merits of high-volume 80:20 training vs low volume, predominantly HIT based training. I think this might be a better way to summarise discussion than the thread title? And the upshot is, my steady runs are rarely slow enough, according to this! (The article is arguing against the modern idea that a top athlete can get away with low-volume, all high-intensity training, although admitting that for many regular athletes it may be the most effective use of time).

My annual strategy is partly worked around winter, as my metabolism struggles without sunlight. (Take Sunday: it was sunny, I had been out training twice (steady) by 1:30pm and felt so bouncy that I very nearly went out a third time, although opted for weights instead on this occasion; but come yesterday morning it was dark and gloomy and I felt unsteady trying to walk around the house! And I took a day off).
So, after a late-autumn break, I start training closer to once than twice a day during December/January, but work on intervals (and make my continuous runs harder) to bring up my max speed, vo2max, and aerobic capacity to a more acceptable level. This plateau's after a while. Also, thinking about technique is good before building the volume.
Then, and I will do this suddenly, I will double the volume by doubling the number of sessions, obviously running a lot more slowly for a few weeks. Multiple sessions is the safest and most effective way for me to do this; long runs just make me tired in a bad way and can encourage bad technique. Often, I will run the same course with between 1-5 hours gap between. After a few weeks of this, my times start to match the times I was running once a day, and I'll gradually build up the interval work again. Also, I'll start to run longer sessions, effectively combining 2 sessions into one. I see the big adaptations in this block as being metabolic (including appetite and digestion / glycogen resupply as well as fat-burning).

So my approach first builds up intensity on a moderate volume, rather than putting in hours of slogging. However, while the volume is being increased suddenly, my legs will feel tired or heavy going into a lot of the sessions. As long as it's just legs that feel tired, and not general fatigue, this is OK. But this goes a little against the top quote from Chris: just for a few weeks in this training block, I need to go training even though my legs feel heavy. Of course, I'm not looking for an amazing interval session when I do it.

One last thought: fell-running is different! If you look at 80:20 training guides online, you will find that runners are told not to include hills in their steady sessions, as this will put you straight into the middling no-man's-land territory, instead of it being a low-heart-rate steady run. So, you can give up hills and train a lot on the flat? You will gather from what I have said that this is not quite my approach!

[Turlough]

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.

The fuel mix sentence mentions training at these exact proportions. That means the exact fuel mix of fat and glycogen for the particular endurance event. Elite marathon coaches now accept that this is essential for specific adaptions, the bodywontbe able to optimally use this exact mix on race day otherwise.

You did mention that elites that you knew used this hard training you referred to, but you also deduced that any athlete who wanted to improve should employ these methods. I disagree. Elites generally have maximised their aerobic development and have thus been in a position to do harder sessions to prepare
them to do more sprcific work.

Athletes who havent maximised their aerobic potential should do so to first and then gradually increase the proportion of specific training. An elite athletes career is a journey. An athlete who wants to improve should see where he is on this journey. A young elite endurance athlete might have aerobic mileage at near 90% in his early twenties. At 30 thatshould be 40% with 60% specific. A non eliteshould view his potential maximum aerobic development as that which he/ shecan achieve with the time avsilable. If that is achieved the sessions can become harder and more specific. Taking a snapshot of an established elites training and suggesting it as a template for all improving athletes would not achieve the optimum results.

Also for events around 2-3 hours, training that burns glycogen heavily close to race time is not
desireable. This training should only be used to support specific training done closer to the race, and only ifthe athlete has developed aerobically to his full potential given his particular constraints. Otherwise, imo aerobic training alone is best to support the specific training.

[CL]

Back to the thread topic, and I do love this quote. Spot on, with a caveat though ~ if training has to hurt (or be very hard) to give results, then how do you differentiate between fatigue that requires a day off / gentle session, and fatigue/less than 100% recovery that means you can still train? I rarely train at 100% recovery (as that would imply race-tapering and missing too many sessions).

I do call my training 'adaptive', along lines Chris says here. As different parts of the body may be at a different (subjective) state of recovery, I may also choose which hard session to go for depending on how my body is feeling. In the past especially, I would run very high intensity uphill treadmill intervals, which I could manage while calf or hamstring strains healed. Also, I do not plan days off, but I do take a rest day when one is needed.

It's been interesting reading this thread because
(a) when I showed a coach my first training log a few years back, for a discussion about the interval work I had developed, he asked How do you get faster when so many of your training runs are steady?! Not in any case being widely read, I was slightly indignant and wanted to say that being marked steady only meant it being 2 or 3 minutes slower than a hard effort! And indeed I was setting PBs even on runs marked as steady!
(b) inspired by

I found an article http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.pdf about the merits of high-volume 80:20 training vs low volume, predominantly HIT based training. I think this might be a better way to summarise discussion than the thread title? And the upshot is, my steady runs are rarely slow enough, according to this! (The article is arguing against the modern idea that a top athlete can get away with low-volume, all high-intensity training, although admitting that for many regular athletes it may be the most effective use of time).

My annual strategy is partly worked around winter, as my metabolism struggles without sunlight. (Take Sunday: it was sunny, I had been out training twice (steady) by 1:30pm and felt so bouncy that I very nearly went out a third time, although opted for weights instead on this occasion; but come yesterday morning it was dark and gloomy and I felt unsteady trying to walk around the house! And I took a day off).
So, after a late-autumn break, I start training closer to once than twice a day during December/January, but work on intervals (and make my continuous runs harder) to bring up my max speed, vo2max, and aerobic capacity to a more acceptable level. This plateau's after a while. Also, thinking about technique is good before building the volume.
Then, and I will do this suddenly, I will double the volume by doubling the number of sessions, obviously running a lot more slowly for a few weeks. Multiple sessions is the safest and most effective way for me to do this; long runs just make me tired in a bad way and can encourage bad technique. Often, I will run the same course with between 1-5 hours gap between. After a few weeks of this, my times start to match the times I was running once a day, and I'll gradually build up the interval work again. Also, I'll start to run longer sessions, effectively combining 2 sessions into one. I see the big adaptations in this block as being metabolic (including appetite and digestion / glycogen resupply as well as fat-burning).

So my approach first builds up intensity on a moderate volume, rather than putting in hours of slogging. However, while the volume is being increased suddenly, my legs will feel tired or heavy going into a lot of the sessions. As long as it's just legs that feel tired, and not general fatigue, this is OK. But this goes a little against the top quote from Chris: just for a few weeks in this training block, I need to go training even though my legs feel heavy. Of course, I'm not looking for an amazing interval session when I do it.

One last thought: fell-running is different! If you look at 80:20 training guides online, you will find that runners are told not to include hills in their steady sessions, as this will put you straight into the middling no-man's-land territory, instead of it being a low-heart-rate steady run. So, you can give up hills and train a lot on the flat? You will gather from what I have said that this is not quite my approach!

In answer to your question at the top look at your summary at the bottom. You've answered your own caveat! On Sunday you'd already trained but later on you felt 'bouncy,' so you did some weights. That bouncy feeling you describe is a high energy level and when you feel like that you have to take advantage of it, within certain sensible limits.

As natural athletes we can never predict when we'll have a good day and when we'll have a bad day: one day you may go out and do intervals and the next you might feel 'bouncy' and so you feel able to push it again. On the other hand you may not feel good for 4 or 5 days. That's why I like Aouita's quote, it's honest. He's essentially telling lesser athletes that he goes through exactly the same sensations as the rest of us; he has good and bad days and even he can't predict when they'll occur.

In your summary above you've also gone some way to differentiating the various sensations when you told us about the general fatigue of the overall system and the fatigue of the muscles. For me distinguishing between the two is key to making rapid progress. High intensity training drains the system which is why it shouldn't be sustained for long. In this respect HIT weight training with compound movements is the worst offender.

One last point: not all training has to be painful to be effective. Steady state efforts still have a training effect, just from the fact that on those days the rate of oxygen consumption will be higher than if you sat around all day. There is a limit though and if you go beyond it you'll get no further fitness increases. Instead you'll produce a decrease in fitness mearly because the energy and resources used for adaption will be wasted on training. In effect you'll be taking the 'bounce' out of the ball.

[IainR]

Interesting about the feeling good and using it..

I tend not to.. Normally I do hard efforts, or hardish on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that's normally track reps, say 5x1k, 8x8's, or hills reps, and then either longer reps, 1 mile to 2k or tempo runs, 4 miles at 1/2 marathon pace on Thursdays. If I feel good Wednesday I'd still run the session I had planned.. which is normally 10-14 miles on road or trail at something like 1 min off my marathon pace.. maybe a tad faster.. I always struggle to work out what pace to do those runs, and was told 45s-1min off my current marathon pace... high 6's which feels comfortable.

So you reckon if you feel good you could so do another hard session again? Naturally I've always avoided back to back sessions..

I suppose I also come from a regimented football/rugby background when hard training was always Tuesday/Thursday play at the weekend.. whether you felt like it or not and that sort of still dictates my approach..

[CL]

Interesting about the feeling good and using it..

I tend not to.. Normally I do hard efforts, or hardish on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that's normally track reps, say 5x1k, 8x8's, or hills reps, and then either longer reps, 1 mile to 2k or tempo runs, 4 miles at 1/2 marathon pace on Thursdays. If I feel good Wednesday I'd still run the session I had planned.. which is normally 10-14 miles on road or trail at something like 1 min off my marathon pace.. maybe a tad faster.. I always struggle to work out what pace to do those runs, and was told 45s-1min off my current marathon pace... high 6's which feels comfortable.

So you reckon if you feel good you could so do another hard session again? Naturally I've always avoided back to back sessions..

I suppose I also come from a regimented football/rugby background when hard training was always Tuesday/Thursday play at the weekend.. whether you felt like it or not and that sort of still dictates my approach..

Have you ever considered Iain that the reason you don't get the 'bounce' is because you run too much? As far as doing another session the day after, I typed you've got to be sensible because it can all catch up on you later. When it does the recuperation period maybe a lot longer than you anticipated from the one session. If you're prepared to ease down for the crash fair enough but some people don't respond well to that. Most people who train hard one day will feel tired for at least a few days after.

That bouncy feeling Lissa describes is how exercise should make you feel and when it does you shouldn't always destroy it with more hard training. In other words enjoy being fit.

[IainR]

Aye that's a good point...

The other year I worked at sea for a few days.. got off the vessel in Norway and did a 10 miler.. couldn't believe the bounce.. strange that.. :-)

[andy k]

In my expereince feeling good is not always a good indicator of performance.
I've trained /raced when feeling good and had poor sessions / results
I've trained /raced when feeling "off" and had great sessions / results
there's so much more at play than the physiology - psychology I think then call it.