Adapting Arthur Lydiard's Training Methods

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » November 28th, 2004, 4:18 pm

Yesterday, I received from GeorgeD via Ole Granny a summary of Arthur Lydiard’s training methods, as compiled by John Molvar. It contains this passage: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Phase I – Accent to Peak Mileage For this phase Lydiard recommends ascending to peak mileage fairly rapidly, about 9 weeks. This is contrary to what many others say. Others say you should go much more gradually and many in fact say you should take years. Lydiard says this is unnecessary and will greatly delay your development. Lydiard says you can and should take a sedentary office worker who has never done anything physical his whole life and get him up to 100 miles per week in 9 weeks. [Emphasis added – R.E.] Lydiard does caution that when you ascend rapidly that the tendons around the knees and in the front shins can get sore and you may have to ice them after every run for a few weeks until they grow stronger but there is no need to stop running. Lydiard says to also expect muscle soreness but don’t take days off, just run slower if you have to and the soreness will gradually subside. Lydiard says the key to being able to increase your mileage rapidly is to alternate longer runs with shorter runs. During the accent, Lydiard recommends you run very easily and slowly at all times. The main purpose is to get to peak mileage as soon as possible and to not even think about aerobic or tempo runs at this time. The table below can be used to ascend to peak mileage. day effort week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10 mon easy 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 tue easy 0 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 wed easy 0 2 4 6 9 11 13 15 18 18 thu easy 1 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 13 fri easy 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 sat easy 1 3 6 8 11 14 17 20 22 22 sun easy/plus 100s 0 1(2) 2(4) 4(6) 5(8) 6 (10) 7 (10) 8 (10) 10 (10) 11 (10) [Number in parentheses is the number of 100m sprints] week total 3 11 22 34 45 56 66 78 90 100 Lydiard discovered that alternating longer runs at a slightly lower effort with shorter runs at a slightly harder effort will result in much faster improvement than running the same distance every day. He also found that running a once weekly long run significantly increases the rate of improvement. Additionally a once per week run just slightly below the threshold is essential for rapid improvement. It should be noted that all runs should still fall into the "strong aerobic effort" category. Lydiard discovered that running one longer run per day than two shorter runs results in quicker development. Therefore all your aerobic mileage should be run in one run per day. If you chose to run more than 100 miles per week, you can add an additional run on some days which will be done slower than the strong aerobic range.  </td></tr></table> Before considering whether to try to apply Lydiard’s methods for training runners to erging, I’d like to ask Forum runners past and present: A) Can the average ever-sedentary person (with no heart problems) get to 100 miles of running easily and slowly* per week in nine weeks? B) Is 100 miles per week on the road equal in training benefit and wear&tear to 160K per week [i.e., a half-marathon every day, plus a 1760m warm-up] on the erg? C) What adjustments in total mileage/meterage, if any, should be made for age? * How easily and slowly? “When Peter Snell started the program, he could not complete his first attempts at the 22 mile long run and had to be picked up by Lydiard. His first completed run took over 3 hours.” [~8:11/mile => ~2:33/500m]

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » November 28th, 2004, 7:18 pm

Hi Ralph, When I was running I found 100k a lot per week and I have no idea what 160k must be like but I cant see you doing it on 1 session a day and surviving. I cant imagine 160k a week on any number of sessions and having a life. Also the rapid increase in volume that is suggested is contrary to everything else I have ever read and I would not want to try it. I have found on the erg that 100k is a lot for me given life and self imposed constraints and on average 6 sessions a week and hour or so at a time. I have no doubt that if I owned an erg and so trained at home that it would be quite easy to rack up 160k+ a week and in fact there are many here that do more. My interest in this article and many others tho is what will make me faster, and I am not convinced that Lydiards regime would. I have no doubt that his premise of Periodisation would and will make me faster over time, but the actual 'numbers' I doubt. I think there has been a lot of study and hence knowledge gained since the days of Snell and Halberg punding round the streets of West Auckland for mile after mile. I read somewhere recently that at one stage Coe was doing only 50miles a week, but that begs the question at what pace? The most important thing I took from the article was patience and foundation. You build onto the foundation year after year and where you are at at the end of that partculars years off season will determine you peak later in the year. You build it up in training and trade it off in racing. At the end of the season the foundation is a little wider and higher than at the end of the last season and so it goes on, but it takes patience and you will not get there in one year nor maybe 2 or 3 ... patience and hard work - at least for us mortals. - George

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » November 28th, 2004, 8:43 pm

Seb Coe's father has written a (fat) book, which includes some of Coe's training schedules as a youth. Title: Better Training for Distance Runners, by David E. Martin and Peter N. Coe (Human Kinetics). In the book the training guidance for middle-distance runners (800m-3000m) suggests fewer miles than the plans for the long distance runners (5,000-marathon). On one chart, the max weekly distance for a middle distance runner is 75-80 total miles. Max distance for a long-distance runner is 80-95 miles. Typically, the long-distance runners are doing about 10 miles more per week, and the middle-distance boys and girls do more "anaerobic" work throughout the entire training regimen. The world record for a 3k is 7.20+ (or it was when the book was published). 8.06+ for women. A 3k is 12% lactate energy system, 88% aerobic. So a 2k erg is similar to a 3k run, give or take a bit, for many of us. Do any runners concentrating on the 1500 or 3k today follow the Lydiard approach? Tom Rawls

[old] tow rope · Post by **[old] tow rope** » November 28th, 2004, 9:51 pm

Ralph, A) I certainly wouldn’t say it can’t be done, but my feeling is that less than 10% would be successful. A better strategy would be to assault the 100M/WK from a 35M/WK base. Build on avg 10% wk with and easy wk hard wk approach. Also add tempo, interval, and strength training. B) 100M’s/Wk running is not sustainable or healthy. C) My sense about it is that erging is not nearly so abusive as running, however my longest ERG to date is only 20K (I did run 100MI/ for one week training for a marathon @ 50). I did so only to accomplish the 100Mi/wk goal. The smart approach would be to try to maximize your fitness with a balance of strength training, ERGing, and nutrition. Bert

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » November 28th, 2004, 10:07 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (TomR/the elder @ Nov 29 2004, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Do any runners concentrating on the 1500 or 3k today follow the Lydiard approach? Tom Rawls  </td></tr></table> Not sure Tom about today. I know the likes of Snell and Walker did this sort of milage and training but 'today' I dont know. I thought I had read that some of the top 1500m runners (african) did this sort of milage in buildup but I dont read much about that ... tho I do think that the principles hold true today with regard to 'build-up'. I do think the equating of a 2k erg to a 3k run is an appropriate analogy.... thanks for that. - George

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » November 28th, 2004, 10:15 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (tow rope @ Nov 29 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The smart approach would be to try to maximize your fitness with a balance of strength training, ERGing, and nutrition. Bert  </td></tr></table> Hi Bert, my thought has always been that as you grow older and the ravages of sporting abuse in younger years starts to catch up with you then the objective is to achieve your goals with the least possible added wear and tear to the body. This does not mean short cuts or backing off the hard work or intensity it just means training smarter - We agree - George

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 29th, 2004, 2:44 am

a] Yes I think the average sedentary person can get to 100 miles a week of running or rowing in 9 weeks, provided they go easily and slowly enough. b] 100 miles per week on the road is far more difficult to accomplish. The benefits are also greater for running, however so is the wear and tear unless running barefoot on the grass. c] Adjustments for age can be based on running for the same amount of time, though that will eventually diminish. When going for distance it is not a matter of how fast, but how easy.

[old] tow rope · Post by **[old] tow rope** » November 29th, 2004, 10:08 pm

George, Yes I think we agree. I thought more about this last night and while I don’t think I was wrong in saying that less than 10% of those that started would finish (really I think the number is less than 3%). The question and answers really overlook the obvious. Running or ERGing 100 miles is an attainable goal by many, but a 100/mi week ,a marathon, or an ultamarathon is itself not the prize; it is the training and the spirit, and drive within the training that makes the goal worthwhile and meaningful. Regards, Bert

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » November 29th, 2004, 10:57 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (tow rope @ Nov 30 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>... it is the training and the spirit, and drive within the training that makes the goal worthwhile and meaningful. Regards, Bert </td></tr></table> Hi Bert, I am the only one at our gym who really ergs and so naturally I get the odd look from people as they leave to go home because they said hello when they arrived ..... and I 'm still going I used to think that I was doing all these k's to achieve a goal of a certain time over 2k .... but then I got asked "Why" the other day just after I had finished an hour and was sitting in a puddle of sweat - and my answer was - "for the socks"!!! The 2k time is so far down the track that the truth is I get out of bed at 5:30am to 'bust a gut' because I like the way it makes me feel - good !!! - George