12

arthur lydiard books (Read 1440 times)

    Hi again Nobby,

     

    I have just bought a marathon plan from the running-wizard site where the training starts on 2. December this year. I'll re-read HIT and send a review to you before I start the marathon plan. In general, I will try to follow the plan but will also be doing some VO2 Max sessions in most phases as it is really good to do this with my running buddies in the local club. I know that this is not ideal but the social aspect of running should not either be underestimated.


    Slow-smooth-fast

      love to see the review. cheers.

      "I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

      JoeO


        Bob Hodge's page has a "Lydiard Interpreted" section you might find interesting

         

        http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Special/LydiardInterpreted.htm

          As promised, I will give my own personal review of Healthy Intelligent Training written by Keith Livingstone. Background: Since I started to run in a structured way in 2002, I have read a lot of books on running. It has all the time been my goal to break 3 hours in a marathon. My absolute favorite book is Daniels' Running Formula. In 2004, I followed one of his schedules and ran 3.08 which is my PB on the distance. Later on the same year, I followed Pfitzinger's program from Advanced Marathoning up to 70 miles per week and finished in 3.10. A lot of people are very happy with Pfitzinger's book and the programs may be better for the majority of runners. However, I love Daniels' varied programs and the way in which he writes about being able to create your own schedules. Furthermore, being able to use races to determine your VDOT value makes the book invaluable as I see it.

           

          Having trained very hard and subsequently focusing too much on paces much higher than recommended by Daniels for easy runs, has made me realise that something has to be done if the 3 hour barrier is ever going to be broken. Therefore, I used Hadd's principles which are based on Lydiard to try to reach the goal. This meant higher mileage and the easy workouts being run at a better (slower) pace, also in accordance with Daniels; again an injury stopped me from even trying the marathon this year. A guy from this running site recommended that I read HIT and here is my review.

           

          The best things in the book for me:

           

          1. The book is written very passionately. You can feel that the author really believes that Lydiard's ways are the right ones.

          2. Excellent explanation of acidosis. Most books on running don't really tell why it is a bad idea to run for example threshold runs in the aerobic phase.

          3. For marathon runners, it is also great that it is suggested to run 2*1 hour a week at marathon pace.

          4. Nice with the explanation of the bad idea in using extra carbs for long runs.

          5. Very good explanations of the need for running hills. Daniels hardly offers anything in this area. The part about activation of IIB fibers here makes the book worth all of its money

          6. Good description of heart rate and training zones

          7. Very entertaining stories about runners and their mistakes

          8. I'm sure that the book is fantastic for middle distance runners and coaches; I mostly see these readers as the target group.

           

          Parts which could be improved:

           

          1. If I were to write this book, I would move the chapters, so that the hill phase came immediately after the aerobic phase. I don't understand why the Recovery, Nutrition chapter follows the part about the Lydard System Explained.

          2. As a long distance runner, I would have liked to have more information about training for marathon distances. That is, a description of a way you can make your own marathon schedule based on Lydiard. It may be out of the scope of this book and unfair to compare it with Daniels in this respect. I have bought a Lydiard-based schedule via running-wizard.com and I would not have been able to make this program based on HIT. It is, however, very easy to see the phases in the above schedule because I have now read HIT!

          3. Some parts of the book are based too much on the elite, I feel. I assume that the target group is runners who take running seriously even if there is not very much talent. For instance, in Daniels' tables the lowest VDOT value is 61.Also in the chapter Developing Your Winning Strategies, focus is only on trying to beat competitors. For the majority of runners, a winning strategy is reaching a time goal.

           

          Again, the above objections are very subjective and I find that HIT is a really good book. If you want more information, you are very welcome to come with comments and so on Smile


          Slow-smooth-fast

            Nobby ,I have started the training plan laid out in the literature posted here. I am enjoying running for time instead of obsessing with mileage. However, based on the plan, it will only take me to around 70mpw anyway if I average about 7mph. How do you increase this as it says that for example on a Tues, where it prescribes 1hr30, someone may cover 15 mile, and others may not, but this so that the slower runner will not get over trained. How are you supposed t reach higher mileage when you are a slower runner if it tells you to stick to the time in the plan?

            "I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

              Whether an athlete is genetically faster or slower, a 90 min run puts a similar stress on both athletes.

              Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!


              Slow-smooth-fast

                Whether an athlete is genetically faster or slower, a 90 min run puts a similar stress on both athletes.

                 

                I understand the stress thing but how therefore is a slower runner (me), supposed to get the mileage in to reap the benefits if you stick to the prescribed plan? He prioritises time on feet, but says that optimum is 100mpw.

                 

                At 7mph this is approx 14hours. So, is this sticking to the prescribed times and then adding more? Its like 2 hours a day. How would this work?

                "I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

                  I'd ignore the 100 mpw aspect. If you're training by time, you train by time. I think somewhere around 9.5-10 hrs/wk is about where Lydiard's pgms for the general public topped out. But a little above this may not be too out of whack.

                   

                  With that said, most programs can be flexible to meet what works for you. (running outside year round in Alaska usually requires some adaptation)

                  "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog


                  Slow-smooth-fast

                    So will I build an 'aerobic engine' with say 10hrs a week for X months?

                    "I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

                      10 hours a week for you would make you very strong aerobically. If trying to build base, you can also mix in some tempos, tempo intervals and even shorter faster stuff to stay in touch with speed. Most of miles should be controlled - around 2min per mile slower than your current 5K pace.  Everyone is individual. 100 miles per week may be optimum for one athlete and not another.

                      Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!

                        Re. the 100mpw thing. I suspect that 100mpw is not achievable for many people - especially if you don't have a few years of decent mileage behind you. Part of the reason elite distance runners rise above the rest of us is that their bodies will tolerate a high training load without breaking down. Many of us just can't stay (reasonably) injury free at those kind of mileages, however much we'd like to give it a go.

                          Nobby ,I have started the training plan laid out in the literature posted here. I am enjoying running for time instead of obsessing with mileage. However, based on the plan, it will only take me to around 70mpw anyway if I average about 7mph. How do you increase this as it says that for example on a Tues, where it prescribes 1hr30, someone may cover 15 mile, and others may not, but this so that the slower runner will not get over trained. How are you supposed t reach higher mileage when you are a slower runner if it tells you to stick to the time in the plan?

                          I hesitated if it's even worth responding to you because I seriously doubt if you have any intention of actually listening to anybody's suggestion seriously.  But at any rate, here it goes...

                           

                          If someone decides to do, say, MAF low heart rate training, it means you first study what it is, why it works, all the benefits and possibly the down-side of it as well (this "down-side" may include something like "I don't like it..."); and then, if you decide to "seriously" follow that, then you stick with it, having understood most of how it's practiced and why it's benefitial.  "Stick with it" means you do pretty much how it's instructed to do.  In other words, if it's a low heart rate training, you don't all of a sudden throw in some hard interval or tempo run "just because I felt like it."  And "low heart rate" means keeping your heart rate relatively low.  Usually, LOW means not 170 or 180.  It's probably more like 120 or even lower.  Got it so far?

                           

                          I can't remember which "literature" you've read but Lydiard liked to advocate this "time-based" training in his later days.  There are several reasons for it.  One of which is that we can do TOO MUCH of training.  Forgetting some BS thinking of "more mileage = injury"; it's fairly easy for anyboy to run 100 miles a week; assuming they have time to do so.  Bear in mind however that you may NEVER improve much at all by simply running a lot.  in other words, you may gain better result by running, say, 60-miles a week at 70% VO2Max than 100 or even 120 miles at, say, 40% of your VO2Max.  In other words, the effort does matter.  I have no idea what kind of answer you're seeking when you asked: "...will I build an 'aerobic engine' with say 10hrs a week for X months?"  You may run 20-hours a week for 20 weeks but if you simply plod along, you may never gain necessary development to "perform well".  You may be able to run a marathon every other month in 5-hours and feel nothing of it--and if that's what you want, you would achieve your goal; if that's what you meant by "aerobic engine"...or you just threw in that fancy term in there???

                           

                          The point is; there's the ideal amount of training one should be doing; there's too much and too little.  Also there's the ideal effort of training one should be doing; it could be too hard or too easy.  You need to do the right training, not an impressive training--be it volume OR effort.  Lydiard first said 100 miles a week.  Soon he had realized that that didn't work for everybody.  So he suggested time-based training; as it seems that you had read that somewhere.  Time-based training means you train based on time (duh!!).  In other words, forget mileage.  When you start to count if you run 70 or 80 or 92 miles per week; then it's NO LONGER time-based training, is it?  There, it's like mixing up intervals and tempo runs into your low heart rate training.  Right from the get-go, you're getting off the track.  It's, to me, like saying; "Man, I really enjoy Lydiard training; but I decided to start with sprint training because I like to sprint..."  Well...!

                           

                          I THOUGHT I had suggested you this before; IF you are interested in trying out Lydiard training, THAT is the very motivation why we had worked so hard to create this Running Wizard.  Not everybody is at the level of running 100 miles a week...or even 70 or 80.  So we say, okay, start from here.  Just put down your longest run and we'll designate all the other runs according to your longest run...IN MINUTES (this is what "time-based training" is all about.  Most people still count their runs in distance so we included a formula to calculate the distance based on the duration suggested and teh pace suggested (it's fairly easy to do; it's minutes devided by pace in minutes and seconds and you get the distance covered).  But here, the distance doesn't matter--it's just the result.  You have the suggested duration because, if your longest run is 60-minutes, why try 120?  If you're a beginner, or slower runner, you WILL run less in distance.  Why chase more when you can't?  Why try to do something you are not ready to do...or simply can't right now?  Why are you so fixated with 100MPW when your appropriate weekly mileage seems to be 70?  Again, I have no doubt you can do 100 if you really want to...without getting injured!!  But most likely you'll be slower.  Why?  Because all the signes seem to point out that you're not ready for it.  When your body tries to do (or more accurately, when YOU try to make your body to do) something it's not ready to do, it just automatically adjust it--it's a simple defence mechanism.  So how do you think your body will adjust it? 

                           

                          So how would your body adjust yourself to achieve "more mileage" weekly?  By getting faster aerobically.  You sure as hell won't achieve that by squeezing extra mileage into your schedule to get it closer to 100.  You achieve that state by doing the right training.  You do the right training and your body will adjust itself to take in, tranport and utilize more oxygen; in other words, to be able to run faster aerobically.  Today, we see so many people run a lot of miles but very slowly.  And they say it's because they are not fast.  That's a bunch of BS.  When you look at what they do, invariably you'll find them doing something clearly over their head.  They might have had 6-months of training background and barely manage 10-minutes for one mile time trial, yet, they want to run a marathon ("because it's a special experience...") and they figured they'd need to run a couple of 20-milers in order to manage 26.  That 20 might be 80% of their weekly mileage.  So what would your body do as a defence mechanism?  Yeah, we are seeing the result all over the place and we hear that as "it's because I don't have talent..."  I don't believe it.

                          12