Steve vs the Experts #13: Hudson and Fitzgerald

Brad Hudson's book, "Run Faster" (2008, with Matt Fitzgerald) is the latest to become wildly popular among competitive runners, particularly marathoners. Hudson had several coaches in his running career (2:13 marathon) and has taken ideas from each, which is the same approach as one of his coaches, Bill Dellinger, profiled earlier. He freely admits his workouts are a grab bag of tricks, but used within the frame of a carefully constructed system. His general ideas of personalizing one's schedule and using previous experience to modify one's training are obvious and universal, but well worth remembering. The majority of the book is very sound advice - I want to stress that, as I tear apart the Marathon Schedule 3 in the last pages of the book, which many follow closely.

Mileage: His toughest marathon schedule goes from 56-87 miles per week (again, I think that's a big jump, but it's typical of all schedules). He states (page 56) that there should be some two-a-days once over 70 miles per week, but he includes only one in the entire schedule. Again, on p. 145, he states 70 mpw is maximum before running twice per day. On page 209, he notes that Paula Radcliffe set the world record (2:15) on 150 mpw. "The marathon record will never again be broken by someone who trains much less than this amount." Steve Jones' 2:07:12 on 90 miles per week is listed only one page earlier, following Derek Clayton's 2:08:33 on 170 miles per week. For someone who's studied the marathon closely, he's missed this important fact.

Sunday long run: He includes a number of types of long runs, including basic easy runs of up to 24 miles. What he's known for are "progression runs," where one increases pace toward the end of the run, to simulate the stress one has at the end of a marathon race; what he neglects is that from his own description of the "VO2max slow component," running at a steady pace would do the same thing. He includes one hard long run (20 miles) 3 weeks out from the marathon and a 1/2 marathon race 5 weeks out [on p. 154, he advocates a build-up of races from 5K and 10K before this]. He has one "specific endurance long run" of 2 hours, with 15 minutes at marathon pace; most of the marathon pace running is done in other types of workouts.

Monday hill sprints: This is one of the distinguishing features of the Hudson plan. One does a few all-out sprints up a steep incline. His reasoning is that one needs to maintain one's neuromuscular fitness - it's the same reason the other plans have 100 meter strides and/or bounding and skipping drills a la Lydiard (and which Hudson includes in his warm-up routine). He likes to have it the day before a hard workout as a check for tiredness (p. 171). Though I also like using hills and sprints, I fault his rationale on p.77, where he states that by increasing sprint speed 4% from 7.5 to 7.8 m/s, a 3:00:00 marathoner would improve to 2:52:48. He's overlooking specificity - that marathoner will merely improve his or her finishing kick by about a second (conversely, improving one's marathon time does absolutely nothing for one's sprint times). The reason for doing this workout is that it recruits muscle fibers not otherwise used and aids in range of motion, which tends to decrease with nothing but long slow miles.

Tuesday specific endurance intervals: As he says on p.111, everything is different for the marathon, so these workouts do not fit well with his own description. He has fartlek both early and late in the schedule (9 miles w/ 8x1 min, 8x2 min or 4x5 min at 10K pace; 11-12 miles w/ 8x2 min at 1/2 mar. pace). He has one hill workout of 5x3 min. uphill at 5K pace. He has a variety of track interval workouts at 5k and 10K pace, but there is no progression, nor specificity, though he does state that they don't need to be "totally systematic." (p 105) He also includes ladder intervals, which incorporate varied distances and paces and which I've always disliked, as they do nothing well. These workouts a far cry from what he suggests earlier (p112); there he lists workouts that are long and vary pace from slightly faster than race pace to slightly slower - like the "in-and-out miles" of Dellinger - and which make much more sense.

Friday threshold and marathon pace runs: These are the bread and butter of many marathoners, but seem somewhat downplayed in this schedule. Early, he has progression runs with 3-4 miles hard, perhaps in lieu of the missing races mentioned above. His later workouts have repeats of 10-15 minutes at 1/2 marathon pace, which progress to 10K pace toward the end of the schedule. He doesn't state categorically the reason for these workouts, but they are obviously the same as "threshold" runs in the other schedules I've discussed. Though he has some workouts with a few minutes of marathon-paced running even in the first weeks of the 20 week schedule, there are only 4 listed as "marathon pace running." In week 9, there's 14 miles, with 8 at MP; in week 18, there's 14 miles with 10 at MP, in week 19, there's 12 to 13 with 2x4 at MP and in week 20, there's 5 with 2 at MP. I think that this gets to the specific marathon pace training too late and then hits it too hard too many weeks in a row. The last one, during the taper, I understand as a final confidence-booster, but I think it's too close to the race. It should be noted that in his Level 2 Marathon Plan (less mileage), he has a "Spec. Test" workout of a half-marathon run at marathon pace, with a two mile warm-up and cool-down and this is earlier than week 18. The easier plan makes more sense to me.

But does it work?

Like every plan I've gone through in this series, if one can do the workouts, one will probably have success in racing. Many runners, upon switching from one expert's schedule to another's, will improve simply from exercising somewhat differently, by incorporating one type of stress previously overlooked. Hudson's plan, by having a great variety of workouts, is likely to have something one has not tried. Hudson goes out of his way to tell his readers not to blindly follow the plans as listed, though that is what nearly everyone will do.

I tried this Marathon Level 3 schedule and had problems by the third week, but that says more about me than the schedule. In the third week, there are three progression runs; being a speedster by nature, I tend to start fast and then slow throughout a run, so speeding up at the end is much more difficult than it might be for others and to do it I'd have to intentionally start the runs extremely slowly, ruining the training effect of the mileage. Beside the progression runs, this week has a fartlek run with 8x40 sec. @ 10K-3K pace, which was too easy for me and ended up being closer to 1500 meter pace. The hill sprints are not meant to be a hard workout, but while a marathoner might lope up the hill, I have good sprint speed (for an old guy) and these sprints were HARD, causing me to have muscle aches the next day as if I'd been lifting heavy weights and that impacted the next day's run. Most runners, I'm sure, would have far fewer problems.
.....................
Here ends the long series! There's only a few basic methods of training and I've shown how many of these schedules resemble each other and how they differ and what weaknesses they may have. If you've followed along from the start, you now know more about training schedules than any coach you might hire would. And it probably hasn't meant much.

All that's left is to explain my own method for marathon training which... I've never tried! I've never even suggested it to others. It's just an idea that's floated around in my head for 20 years and which I feel like writing down (After a break. I've written way too much lately.)

Steve vs the Experts #12: Various

Before I finish the series with Brad Hudson, I want to do a quick mention of some others.

Hal Higdon's been selling training plans for middle- to back-of-the-pack runners for decades. I have nothing to say about them, but if one searches for race schedules, his name comes up quickly and he had to be mentioned.

Kevin Beck was the editor of a book on strength training for runners, but he also came up with a training plan that was published in the July/August 1999 issue of "Running Times." It is reproduced here. I mention it because it has a lot of features that show up in my own thoughts. Every three weeks, there is a long run at marathon pace (20K, 25K, 30K, then marathon). There are a couple of hard interval workouts (4-6x1 mile @5K pace; 8x800m faster than 5K pace), which are not unreasonable, the second being similar to the workout made famous by Bart Yasso. There's a long run of up to marathon length each three weeks (on a Thursday, which, combined with the 3 week cycle, makes me think he's familiar with the Dellinger schedule I cited earlier in the series). The mileage is 60-65 miles per week on average, regardless of goal time, which is about what I suggest for a 3:00 finish - it's enough to get to the finish, if not comfortably. It's only 5 hard workouts in each three weeks, but the marathon pace runs are extremely hard. It's minimalist; it's as specific to the marathon as any schedule yet published; it's biggest drawbacks are that it's only 12 weeks long and it assumes one can do a lot of miles at marathon pace immediately.

Tim Noakes' "The Lore of Running" (1986, 1989, 1991, 2002) has many profiles of marathoners and information about how they trained, going in depth for some, such as Ron Hill and (Minnesotan!) Buddy Edelen. It also has some short discussion of Derek Clayton and his 170(plus) miles per week and Grete Waitz and her change from track specialist to 5-time marathon record setter. There's only so much one can glean from a "typical week" training schedule, as most of these are (and the early ones are all from Fred Wilt's books), but there's one that I want to point out for special attention: Steve Jones. Jones' mileage (in kilometers, so... "kilometerage?") immediately before running 2:07:13 was 160, 134, 114, 114, 160, 152, 154 and 92, for an average of under 90 miles per week. His typical week was listed as 135-180K and reads as follows:

M am 12-16K @ 3:07/km.
M pm 10-16K
T am 11K w/ 4x5:00 hard
T pm x-country or track race
W am 11K
W pm 10-16K
Th am 10 hills
Th pm 8-30K (maybe that's 20K, can't read my own writing)
F am 10-12K
F pm Race or 6x1:00 or 10x2:00 or 16-24x0:45
Sa am (off)
Sa pm (off)
S am 24-32K @ 3:45/km.
S pm 19K @ 3:07/km.

His having a long run Sunday morning AND a rather long marathon pace run the same day is interesting. He follows it with more marathon pace the next day and both intervals and a race the next day. That's a lot of hard running day after day! All the elements of all the other training schedules are present, just compressed into as few miles as possible. It's not easy to see how that schedule could be pared down for slower runners.

One more expert before I move on to my own thoughts on the subject!

Steve vs the Experts #11: Pfitzinger

Pete Pfitzinger is an accomplished marathoner (2:11:43) who simply did a practical rewrite of Daniels' book in terms competitive runners commonly use. He still uses the term "lactate threshold," but instead of talking about percentages of maximal oxygen uptake, says it is 1/2-marathon pace (15K pace for slower runners). VO2max runs are simply 5K pace.

In his book "Road Racing for Serious Runners" (1998, with Scott Douglas), he gives an 18 week schedule, with long runs of about 25% of a week's total mileage, alternate weeks being a bit shorter. He also has a second long run of 2/3 the length of the other one; this, if it were done the next day would duplicate a number of ultramarathon schedules. He has a third run each week that is a fast run; about 2/3 of the time increasingly long runs at threshold pace (up to 6 miles), a few times repeats at 8-10K pace (later 5K pace) and late in the schedule 100 meter strides. He has a race of 8-10K four weeks before the marathon and one of 8-15K two weeks prior. There's a three week taper.

The biggest problem with the schedule as given is that it starts at 60 miles per week and builds to 85 in only 12 weeks. That's a sure-fire way to get injured. I like that it has lead-up races, but I expect that starting as late as they do, one would probably have carry-over tiredness even from such short races and one would probably wonder, if one ran slow times, whether one was simply in better shape for longer races or if one was in worse condition than thought.

Pfitzinger wrote another book specifically for the distance: "Advanced Marathoning" (2001,2008, with Scott Douglas). It is possible to line up his schedules with Daniels' exactly; Pfitzinger giving day-to-day, rather than week-to-week schedules. He includes one day off each week, though he usually has two workouts the following day, which i think defeats the purpose. There's one minor change from Daniels in that there's 6 weeks of "endurance phase," 5 of "lactate threshold and endurance phase," 4 of "race preparation" and 3 of "taper and race." One entire schedule has been printed in "Running Times" magazine and is available here.

The fact that he has exact mileage for each day will appeal to runners who just want someone to tell them what to do, but it's not easy to see how to rearrange the schedule to fit one's needs.The weeks 6,5 and 4 are problematic: the first week has a race and an 18 miler the next day, then the next week is 70 miles with a 17 miler containing 14 at marathon pace and the next week is another race. This is just barely possible - if one can actually do such workouts, the marathon won't feel hard at all. I like that there are a number of 11-15 mile runs, which tend to get neglected in other schedules (such as Daniels, who would divide those into two-a-days) and that there are a few fast runs during the early weeks.

(I know you're wondering how long this series will be... a few more yet to come!)

Steve vs the Experts #10: Daniels

The number of problems I have with the way Jack Daniels presents himself and his ideas are seemingly infinite, starting with the title of his book, "Daniels' Running Formula" (1998, 2005); it suggests that he's come up with a scientific system that allows one to plug in one's goals and then following his plans, your success is guaranteed. I'll try to limit my comments to the validity of the basis of his plans and whether or not the Plan A for the marathon works.

Daniels started with a book, "Oxygen Power," which no one will ever read, but attempted to equate performances at different distances, as did Gardner and Purdy in "Computerized Running Training Programs." (1970) The Gardner/Purdy charts work well for populations of runners, but not particularly well for any one runner. The Daniels charts (Table 3.1 in 2nd edition of DRF) work well for the less than 2% of the population who are natural marathoners or ultramarathoners.

Daniels' theory of training falls along the line of the one presented by Scott (see earlier post), but divides training by percentage of one's maximal oxygen uptake and then tries to equate that with specific paces. He posits that one should train only at those paces which are maximally effective for gains in one component of running ability: (for elite runners) 74% for developing cardiovascular system (easy running), 88% for improving endurance (anaerobic threshold), 100% for stressing aerobic power (VO2max intervals).

There are multiple problems with this theory. First, tests of maximal oxygen uptake rarely have runners reach their maximum; there's some extrapolation. Three years ago, I could get my heart rate to 178. With heavy training at as close to maximum as possible, I have increased that number to 184, even though one cannot actually increase that maximum; I can only force myself to that point for at most three seconds, when his interval training would require me to hold it for a number of minutes. Second, the test has an athlete run on an inclined treadmill for about 12 minutes and is only a reliable test for events like that: it's a reliable predictor for 5K's for elite runners or 3K for back of the pack runners, because those races are about 12 minutes, but not for a marathon; it's no coincidence that the runner with the highest recorded VO2max (Matt Carpenter, 90 ml/kg/min) is most competitive in uphill races, like the Pike's Peak Marathon, as the treadmill tests one running uphill.

Training is specific, but not as specific as Daniels tries to make it sound (I hope to later show Brad Hudson makes the opposite mistake) and he ends up continuously patching his ideas until there's nothing left. First, he states that a threshold run is 20 minutes done at a pace one could race for one hour. Then he makes it a range of paces to be run up to an hour, where it overlaps with marathon pace running. Marathon pace running doesn't fit any of his categories, so he created another one for it. Then, beyond interval training, he had repetition runs, but he needed another pace beyond that, which he called "Fast Running" (cf. his 800m training schedules). Finally, in the 2nd edition, in Table 2.2, he adds 10K pace running, which now has every pace above recovery or ultramarathon pace. In other words, he admits all paces are valid, not just the specific ones he states.



But does it work?



The "Plan A" marathon schedule, first presented in Runner's World in 1996 under the title "One Size Fits All" is popular and has a lot going for it, if one ignores all the bad science he claims it's based upon. I won't infringe upon the copyright, but here's someone who did (schedule).

After a 6 week mileage build-up, he starts with intervals, then threshold runs, then marathon paced runs. This is another "top down" method, starting with speed, then extending the length of the fast runs while decreasing their pace and is the opposite of plans such as Glover's, which has one peak by running faster toward the end of the schedule. This makes complete sense for most runners, who are moving from 5K or 10K races up to the marathon; it is the length of time that one has to run fast that is the challenge of the marathon.

He does not give mileage totals, but states percentages of one's maximum one should do each week. He does not explain how he arrived at these numbers, but one assumes that as the individual workouts get harder, the mileage decreases. One of the things easy to miss in the book (and with which I disagree) is that he feels that, if you run more than 50 miles per week, you should run twice a day.

Hidden in the footnotes of his plan in the 2nd edition, he has runners doing 6-8 x 20-30 second strides twice per week. He doesn't explain why, though I think it is critical to the plan working - and it is remarkably the same as every single plan I've described thus far in this one detail!

He has runners do two very hard workouts per week. For example, in week 18, one runs a 19 miler with 15 miles at marathon pace (or 120 minutes, for slower runners). Every three weeks, he has one run 22 miles (or 2.5 hours or 25% of one's weekly mileage). He has a lot of runs that have up to 8 miles run at threshold pace, interspersed through a long run; again, not explaining the division of the fast sections. These are each decent runs, but they are each very difficult and probably too difficult to do twice a week for most runners. I expect most runners using this schedule find themselves failing in a workout and the fatigue carrying over to the next workout, making them fail at that as well; there is no "wiggle room" - you either do the workout as described, or fail.

The most telling thing to me is that he does not have his own runners follow this schedule, but an "Elite Marathon Training Plan" (included in the book). In this, he no longer has phases of training, but one does all different types of running throughout the season. And that's my method, though I doubt I could do any of the workouts he lists.

Steve vs. the Experts #9: Galloway

[On Borrowed Computer...]

Jeff Galloway ran the 10000 meters in the 1972 Olympics, then re-invented himself as a marathoner, setting a personal best 2:16 at age 35. He had moved to a low mileage program by then, a version of which he's been promoting ever since. The origins of the method were two-fold: 1) Jack Foster (yet another New Zealander) ran a 2:11 marathon on a three days per week (plus one day biking) system and 2) Many first-time marathoners were finishing their races on a system of just one long run every week or every other week.



His first book, "Galloway's Book on Running," came out in 1983 - apparently the year for training manuals - and has been released in revised editions ever since. he's published a number of books since then, including a book specifically about the marathon just this year. His training schedules have changed over the years, but the basic ideas remain. These books are always popular, but I've never known anyone to run a fast marathon using his plans; it's like advertising a method of weight loss without diet or exercise: you'll sell books, no matter how bad the idea is, because people want to believe it'll work. I believe his method is what I call "hollow;" it works for the extremely fast and the extremely slow, for different reasons, but not in between.



First, unlike others who will say to never run as much as 26 miles in one day in training, Galloway insists on it. This works for the 2:15 marathoner, because it's a 2 1/2 to 3 hour run, about what long runs typically are for successful marathoners. It also works for runners who are simply trying to finish the distance, as running 22 miles or more every other week is essentially accomplishing their goal, over and over.



In his first book, Galloway had runners doing as much as 12 miles twice a week, beside the long run or weekend interval workout (described below), incorporating 100m strides at 1 mile pace or drills that duplicate what Lydiard had in his plan. He also had several weeks that included a hill workout preceding the weeks of interval training, just like Lydiard. These runs, of about 90 minutes, are much like what has been seen in the plans of the previous experts. These appear to not be included in his latest book.



Every other week, he had a workout of repeat miles, done faster than marathon pace "so that marathon pace will seem easier." This is a common statement, but the real reason for this pace is that repetitions at marathon pace would simply be too time-consuming. The paces he has seem too fast to me; one ends up running 13 one mile repeats at faster than 1/2 marathon pace. This speed work is about right in each case for a marathon done 10 minutes faster than the goals he sets [Train to run a 2:50 marathon, then run 3:00 and call it a success. This problem is even worse in Lawrence's book.]



Could one do an interval workout at marathon pace? What would it look like? A 2:15 marathoner would run 6 to 10 times 1.75 miles in 9 minutes, with 2.5 minutes rest, until he could no longer hold pace; he could then continue to do repeats at whatever pace he could manage to failure, between 10 and 15 repeats. [15x1.75=26.25, so it's a complete marathon at marathon pace.] A 3:00 marathoner would do 5-8x 1.75 miles at pace, building to 8-15 repeats. It's a very long, boring, difficult workout... one that few would ever attempt more than once.



It should be pointed out that this "top down" rather than "bottom up" method of running fast and building the number of miles done fast, is gaining popularity. There is a plan similar to my 1.75 mile repeats (let's face it, everyone would do 2 miles instead) that made it into Runner's World: (plan).



Everyone I know who's tried Galloway's plan built up to 7-9 repeats of a mile, but failed at later attempts and got discouraged. I think the changes he's made try to rectify the problem by having runners test themselves repeatedly to make sure what their marathon goal should be. In the new book, one does the long run once every three weeks, the interval workout once every three weeks and the third week he has one run an all-out mile for time. That "magic mile" time, multiplied by 1.3, he says is what one's marathon pace should be. It might work... one's time at shorter distances are good measures of one's ability and one mile rarely takes a long recovery.



Running low mileage worked for Galloway and Foster because they had already made all the physiological adaptations that come from years of high mileage. It takes years for some changes, no matter how one trains, and those changes are slow to be lost. For example, my resting heart rate this morning was 34 and I'm only running 20-25 miles per week; if I were running 80 miles per week, it would not go lower, but it's only that low because I've been training for 35 years. For a beginner at the marathon who wants to eventually run their best, a lot of mileage is probably required, but for one who only wants to finish, the mileage is immaterial, the long run is all-important.

Steve vs. the Experts #8: Glover

Bob Glover is more of a writer than a coach, though he was at least the nominal coach of a group on national-class women marathoners. After writing a book for beginners at running (still in print), he was tapped to write one for competitive runners. The Competitive Runner's Handbook (with Pete Schuder, 1983) was an excellent book, with much useful information; a revised edition came out - without Schuder - in 1999 and should still be in print. The book has training plans for runners of differing abilities and for different distances; it's weak at the shorter races, especially the mile, but the marathon plans have to be considered the standard and there's a short section on ultras that's surprisingly good (it has a typical one week plan used for a sub-6 hour 50 mile, written by Stu Mittelman that is as good as any I've seen. Mittelman has also written his own books and they're terrible).

Glover's book does a very good job of dividing runs into categories and fully describing each. First, there are the endurance runs: Long runs being considered a hard run, Medium for fleshing out the week's mileage and Short for recovery. Then Strength Runs: Fartlek (which includes Modified Fartlek, which has no hills and Rolling Hills Runs, which have no real speed work and Advanced fartlek, which has both), Fast Continuous Runs (4-8 miles at half-marathon pace or 8-10 at marathon pace) and Tempo Runs (4-6 miles @ 90% effort, or near 10K pace). Then come Rhythm Runs, which is just another name for intervals or hill repeats and lastly Power Runs, which are not used in the marathon schedules, but are repetitions of up to a mile at 90% effort.

The marathon schedule for a "champion competitor" is essentially as follows: There is an 18 week build-up, with races of 10K-1/2 marathon every third week and long runs the other weekends. The races are to be considered low-key, except for an all-out race 6 weeks prior to the marathon (preferably 1/2-marathon) and an all-out 10K three weeks out.

The first 6 weeks are the "Endurance Phase," where one builds mileage and extends one's long run (to about the amount of time one expects to take to run the marathon); this phase includes one strength run per week, not intended to be a hard workout.

The second 6 weeks are the "Strengthening Phase," where one maintains peak mileage and long runs, while incorporating a weekly rhythm run (8-10x800 meters or 5-6x 1 mile at 10K pace, with about 2 minutes rest between repeats) and a weekly strength run. One of these harder workouts is removed the week of the all-out 1/2-marathon race.

The last 6 weeks has 4 weeks of "Sharpening Phase" and 2 of "Tapering Phase." Here, one decreases one's mileage, especially the last two weeks, slightly decreases the number of harder runs and turns two long runs into medium endurance runs. Instead of trying to increase the number of repetitions done, as in the strengthening phase, one tries to increase one's speed. There is one very hard interval workout 10 days before the marathon, where one does 6-8 repeat miles about 30 seconds per mile faster than expected marathon pace.

There's nothing really wrong with this plan and anyone first attempting to run their best marathon should seriously consider following this plan; if it doesn't work, there are plenty of alternatives to try next! The biggest issue I have with it is the total mileage; a champion class woman over 60 might be running 4:00, rather than the 2:30 of a champion class man under 30; she should not be running the same way - this problem was largely removed in the later editions of the book. Being able to handle the grind of running 90 minutes per day for months undoubtedly will help one handle running the marathon - IF it doesn't lead to constant fatigue or injury. One rarely runs at marathon pace in training (maybe three times, as fast continuous runs during the strengthening phase or early sharpening phase), so pace judgment might be a problem using this method. The marathoner, to be successful, has to do a lot of work, but the experts to follow in the next few posts try to be more efficient in assigning mileage and hard runs. Whether there are any short-cuts is debatable; this is the method for the "more is better" type of runner.

Steve vs the Experts #7: Scott (?)

I don't know who to attribute this plan to, as the first version of it I have came from a journal article that's currently missing the first page, including the name of the author and journal. It's obviously a common athletics journal, between 1989 and 1992, pp. 3435-3442. The only version of it I've seen in a mass-marketed training book is "Dave Scott's Triathlon Training" (1986); and yes, that was before the article. This should be the last book I reference that's out of print.

There is a constant attempt to bridge the gulf between physiology and training; it never really works, but each major attempt brings new (largely meaningless) terms to coaching and influences the way people think about training. This was state-of-the-art at the time.

The philosophy is to divide training into different parts by the energetics involved. The first is Explosive Speed Training, or Phosphate System Training; this refers to muscles using creatine phosphate for very short bursts of maximum intensity. The second is Sprint Race Training or Lactic Acid Tolerance Training; this in reference to the accumulation of lactic acid in tissues in events of short duration. The third is Maximal Oxygen Consumption Training or VO2max Training; this being in reference to events requiring the body to maximize the amount of oxygen used to convert glycogen and sugars for energy. The fourth is Anaerobic Threshold Training, referring to a theoretical point at which lactic acid production and removal are the same. Fifth is Aerobic Threshold Training or Distance Training, which is training that utilizes fatty acids as fuel as well as carbohydrate.

These are imaginary constructs, but they can be useful, as long as one recognizes that they have little basis in reality. One divides one's event into parts and trains for each separately, putting them together as a sort of assembly-line production.

The actual workouts below are first from Scott, second from the journal source.

Phosphate training: 5-10x 5-30 seconds @ 100-120% of 5K pace, 90 second rest intervals (until heart rate is no more than 20-30% above resting)
OR 10-30x 4-15 sec., with 1-3 min rest intervals (1:4-1:25 ratio of work:rest) @ 95% maximal intensity, heart rate immaterial.

Lactate training: 5-8 x 30sec. to 2 min. @ 85-100% 5K pace, 3 min. rest (HR to 30-40% above resting) OR 2x[2-4x30-60 sec. (up to 2-2.5 min)- more than 5 min.]- 30 min. (1 work: 2-3+ rest), HR near maximum.

VO2 training: 2-4x 3-8 min @ 80-95% 5K pace- rest to HR 30-40% above resting, 3-4 work: 1 rest, sets up to 12 minutes [ e.g. 2x(3x3min-1)-3 or 2x(6-8 min)-3] OR 4-12x 3-5 min @ 90% HRmax - 2-3min. (2 work: 1 rest)

Threshold training: 8-50x 1.5-3 min. @ 75-90% 5K pace - 20-90 sec. rest, sets of 15-60 min., allowing HR to drop 10-15% between repeats OR 3-5x 1.5-7 min. (HR 75-85% max)- 2-3 rest (2 work: 1 rest)

Aerobic training: 15min- 6 hours @ 60-85% 5K pace OR 1-6x10 min. to 2 hours (HR 65-75% max) - 1-2 min rests (1 work: 0.2 to 1 rest)

One divides one's training into phases and assigns percentages of one's mileage to each type of training. In the early preparatory phase, it's 75% aerobic, 25% threshold. In the late prep. phase, 50% aerobic, 25% threshold, 20% VO2, 5% lactate. In pre-competition, it's 40% aerobic, 20% threshold, 20% VO2, 10% phosphate, 10% lactate. In competitive phase without a race: 30% aerobic, 20% lactate, 20% VO2, 20% phosphate, 10% threshold. In competitive phase, in a week with a race, the non-racing days are 80@ aerobic, 20% phosphate.

Sounds scientific, doesn't it? Training turned into mathematical formulae. The problem is that people don't actually work that way. This pseudo scientific method is important to note, however, as it keeps returning in different forms, one of which will be seen when I cover the Jack Daniels program.

Steve vs. the Experts #6: Daws

This will be brief, as I can't find my copy of Daws' book, "Running Your Best" (1985), nor can I find one locally I can peruse at will. Daws was a local runner, who made the US Olympic team in the marathon. He was not gifted with a high maximal oxygen uptake, but made up for that by training exceptionally long and hard, to be able to run at 95% of his maximal heart rate for more than two hours. This is not unlike Derek Clayton, who lowered the marathon world record from 2:12 to 2:08 (which stayed the record for almost a generation) and who was also known to train very long and very hard.

My recollection of this training manual was that it was very specific as to the workouts, advocated high mileage and had a great deal of very hard running. It is worth mentioning as an alternative method, but not one I could recommend.

I should also point out, to be fair, that I knew Daws and we didn't like each other. I believe it started when I beat him in a race (I was a rapidly-improving teenager, he was more than a decade past his prime - and it was a short race) and afterward, when he told someone, "Give me a guy who's running 120 miles per week and I'll do the rest (to make him a champion)" and I retorted, "Yeah, tie him to a chair for a couple of days, because he's overtrained."

I've grown up a bit since then and appreciate the hard work he did and his willingness to encourage others.

Steve vs. the Experts #5: Dellinger

The Oregon System of training began with Bill Bowerman and flourished under Bill Dellinger. It's essentially syncretic: it looks at what everyone else is doing, then picks and chooses from among their workouts; this is one of the essential flaws of most runners in the western world (the other being successive faddism). Bowerman was strictly a college coach and had little to say about the marathon. Dellinger also had little to say until one of his former athletes, Aberto Salazar, set the world record in the marathon and was a hopeful for the 1984 Olympics. He and Bill Freeman wrote "The Competitive Runner's Training Book" (1984), which has all the signs of having been hastily written and published. It was not popular, as it only gave elite training schedules, then said "scale back to your own ability level," without explaining how that would be done.

One constant of the Oregon system is a 3 week off-season training cycle. Types of training (some described inadequately, some not explained at all) are: steady running, fartlek, goal pace intervals, date pace intervals, cut-downs, rhythm runs, overdistance trials, underdistance trials, hard intervals, quick running and simulated race drills. This huge "bag of tricks" allows the coach of a team to quickly size up his team; the coach can see what each runner's strengths and weaknesses are and, unfair as it is, find out which runners can tolerate a lot of hard workouts without injury - these become the stars, as the others become support for them.

The schedule given for the marathon is for a 2:15 or better runner:

S. AM: 15 miles
M. AM: 20-30 min.
T. AM 7-10 miles
T. PM one hour fartlek*
W. AM 20-30 min.
W. PM 20-30 min.
Th AM: 7-10
Th PM: 7-10
F AM 20-30 min
F PM 20-30 min
Sa AM: 6x1 mile- 400m recovery. Start at 10 seconds per mile faster than marathon pace and lower the time as the season progresses.
Sa PM: 5-8
S AM: 20-30 min
S PM: 20-30 min
M AM 20-30 min
M PM 20-30 min
T Noon: 18 miles, steady pace. As the season progresses, increase to 24 miles or 3 hours, whichever comes first.
W AM 20-30 min
W PM 20-30 min
Th AM: 5-8
Th PM 5-8
F AM 20-30 min
F PM 20-30 min
Sa AM 9 miles, alternating miles in 5:00 and 5:30, starting and ending with 5:00. As the season progresses, lower the times to 4:40 and 5:20.
S AM 20-30 min
S PM 20-30 min
M Am 20-30 min
M PM 2-30 min
T AM 90 min fartlek*
T PM 5 miles
W AM 20-30 min
W PM 20-30 min
Th AM 7-10
Th PM 7-10
F AM 20-30 min
F PM 20-30 min
Sa AM "cut-downs": 5x(800m run, 200m jog, 300m run, 300 jog). 800's done in 2:40, 2:35, 2:30, 2:24, 2:20 and hard 300's done in 54, 52, 50, 48, 46.

* The book states "Every other week (sic) will be a fartlek run. Add time to the run until you reach two hours..." then "drop back down to one hour and begin increasing again."



The salient points are that there are only two hard workouts per week and that mileage is maintained with two-a-day runs. Dellinger states (p. 139) that some day a runner will break 2:00 in the marathon and that he believes that that runner will only train about 90 miles per week.



Alberto Salazar did not use this schedule for his unofficial world record marathon. Being more of an ultramarathoner by nature (his win at the Comrades 54 mile being as impressive as his marathons), he ran considerably more miles than this schedule has. Salazar has written a book on road racing, which is geared to beginners, with only a few apparent nods to the Oregon system, such as his marathon workouts including a run of 8-10 miles, alternating between faster and slower than race pace.

Another product of the University of Oregon is Brad Hudson, whose book will be the last in this series and is also syncretic in nature, but has more of a philosophy behind it.

Steve vs the Experts #4: Lawrence

Al Lawrence won the bronze medal at the 1956 Olympic 10000 meters in his native Australia. He moved to the United States before Cerutty and Lydiard became inescapable "down under"and his training methods might look to some as a throwback to an earlier time. It's important to see this method, as sometimes a track runner like Grete Waitz or Steve Jones moves up to the marathon and breaks the world record, invariably causing someone to say they rewrote the way to train for the distance.

In his first book, "The Self-Coached Runner," (1984, Allan Lawrence and Mark Scheid) he describes his philosophy by breaking training into: speed, anaerobic threshold, aerobic threshold/endurance and stamina and he spends a few pages explaining the terms; I simplify it as "how fast can you run, how fast can you run a given distance, how far can you run at a given pace, how far can you run." He believes that all runners must work on each of these, though different races require different emphases.

On pp. 161-163, he details David Odom's training for his lifetime best 2:17:13 at the 1983 Houston-Tenneco Marathon. This is one of the few cases where one can see every workout of a runner, rather than one week. To break 2:20, he requires a runner to first do a mile in 4:20 and a 10K in 30:30. There is a preliminary 10 week regimen of 75-95 miles per week as follows:
one 16-20 miler @ 6:30-7:00, three days of 12-15 @ 6:30-7:00, one day of 6-10 @ 5:20 and two days of intervals chosen from 20x100m. in 16-300m. recovery, 16x400 in 72-400, 8x800 in 2:30-400, 6x1200 in 3:50-600, 4x1600 in 5:10-800. Though this has three days of hard running per week, it looks reasonable because the interval workouts are done at a somewhat slower speed than what he has later.

The following will be a blur of numbers, I'm afraid. Where a time isn't given, pace is 6:00-6:45 and each interval workout has a warm-up and cool-down. Here's the 10 weeks before the race:

1) 15; 12x400 in 75-100; 10; 12 w/ 10 in 54; 12; 6; 18 in 1:48.
2) 15; 30x100 in 17-100; 8; 10x400 in 67-400; 12; 10; 20 in 2:00.
3) 15; 6x1 in 5:10-400; 10; 16x200 in 34-200; 6; 6; 25K race in 1:19:30
4) 12; 6; 16x100 in 16-100; 12x400 in 70-400; 10; 8; 22.
5) 15; 4x1 in 5:00-400; 12; 2x2 in 9:40-800; 10; 6; 15 in 1:20.
6) 20; 12 w/ 3 in 14:30; 0; 12; 4x600 in 1:36-600; 0; 30K race in 1:33:50.
7) 12; 6; 9; 3x2 in 10:30-800; 10; 10 in 57:30; 15.
8) 10; 20; 12 w/ 2x2 in 10; 20x400 in 72-200; 10; 6; 24 in 2:33:00.
9) 15; 12 w/ 3 in 15:00; 20x100 in 19-100; 12; 12 w/ 10 in 54.
10) 12; 0; 9; 3x1 in 5:10-600; 0; 8; 0.

The 30K race in week 6 was probably a better race than the marathon. He dropped his mileage from 85 mpw to 80, then 70 before this 30K, then increased his mileage again (perhaps trying to make up for the pre-race tapers and the post-race recovery) to a 7 day peak of about 95 miles only two weeks before the marathon. I think that had he either run the 30K as a marathon-pace training run or allowed himself full recovery after the 30K, he might have run the marathon as fast as 2:14.

If one adds up all the training, he averaged 72 or 73 mpw in the final 10 weeks, where I would expect a little more (perhaps 85 until the last 2 or 3 weeks). He averaged 75 minutes per week at marathon pace or better and I suggest 75-105, so he was just barely within range. The fast runs, including the warm-ups, rest intervals and cool-downs are 120 minutes per week (+/- 60), which is about 25% of the total, which is equal to what I'd suggest (though, as I suggest more miles, I'd suggest more fast miles as a result).

Unlike Lydiard, this method has no hills or fartlek, but a lot of long interval runs. The next expert will combine the two.

Steve vs. the Experts #3: Lydiard

I'm going to limit this to Lydiard's last book, "Running the Lydiard Way," (1978, co-written with Garth Gilmour) and to his marathon training plan, otherwise there'd be no end to what I'd have to say. First of all, everything he says not directly related to training is stupid; for example, in one paragraph (p. 98), he says carboloading doesn't work "because you can't put 5 liters in a 4 liter bucket" and that one should stimulate the liver to make glycogen by taking a laxative (!) and eating 200gm. of honey two days before competition because "honey is mostly fructose." There are at least five things wrong with just those statements.

In the section of his book entitled "Marathon Training (pp 18-19)," he states that one should train at first by time, rather than distance and lists the following week for off-season training: 1 hour Monday, 1.5 hours Tuesday, 1 hour Wednesday, 2 hours Thursday, 1 hour Friday, 2-3 hours Saturday, 1.5 hours Sunday. Then he gives a typical week by distance:
Monday: 15K @ 1/2 effort on undulating course
Tuesday: 25K @ 1/4 on flat course
Wednesday: 20K @ 1/2, hilly
Thursday: 30K @ 1/4, relatively flat
Friday: 15K @ 3/4 effort, flat
Saturday: 35K @ 1/4, relatively flat
Sunday: 25K @ 1/4, any terrain

He never explains what "1/4 effort" is, but intends it to be subjective. These two weeks combine to give 102.5 miles in 630 minutes, which is an appropriate average training pace (in my opinion) for a 2:15 marathoner, though the mileage is probably better suited to training for 100K. In his detailed description of the specific training season (see below), he drops the mileage considerably; in fact, it drops low enough long enough that one may start losing some of the endurance developed by the high mileage.

In addition to the workouts he lists, he suggests "supplemental running," which is a second workout, done very slowly and easily and which increases the weekly mileage (often more than doubling it) until it looks like the Long Slow Distance method. His reasoning is that anything done to raise the heart rate above resting level is aerobic training and running is the best training for runners; my argument against this "junk mileage" is that an argument or a cup of coffee can increase heart rate, but isn't training and extremely slow running only helps if one's training for ultramarathons (an exception may be made for very slow marathoners).

His basic philosophy boils down to: one has a capacity for aerobic work and a capacity for anaerobic work, but if one trains too much anaerobically, one exhausts one's anaerobic capacity, so one should emphasize aerobic training. This makes most sense at marathon distance and beyond.

After a long period of aerobic training, he has 4 weeks of hill training, then 4 weeks of sprint repetitions, then 4 weeks of tapering, a marathon time trial, a repeat of the tapering and the marathon race. This has been viewed as being too much of one type of running, then switching to too much of another, but his system is much more subtle than that. Rather than type out the full schedule, one can view it at http://www.ultrunr.com/lydiard.html

My first argument with the Lydiard system is the intentional vagueness. He advocates running the aerobic runs at "best pace," without adequately defining it beyond what is not too easy or too hard. He has workouts of repetitions and sprints without time goals, saying that one does them until one gets the desired training effect - in essence, saying that if you succeed, it's because you followed his plan, but if you fail, it's because you didn't. Anyone can look like a genius that way!

One of the notable facets of his method is that one never does track workouts like repeat miles or quarter-miles and this is appealing to many runners, but he has many time trials and fartlek sessions which mimic the same effect. The biggest problem is that one never runs at marathon pace during training, so one needs to have an instinctual idea of what one is capable of running before one starts.

Lydiard's ideas, once one learns to recognize them, appear in nearly all training manuals in one form or another. For example, he suggests doing drills emphasizing one aspect of one's running motion; this shows up almost unaltered in Galloway's first book and in Hudson's. Though the idea seems reasonable, I've never seen any evidence, scientific or anecdotal, that it works.

One of the ideas of Lydiard's that struck me for a while was that one trained aerobically until one no longer received benefit from it. This was expanded upon by Maffetone by having one use a heart rate monitor; either one's speed would improve or one's heart rate would drop as one was gaining aerobic fitness - when these stopped changing, one should be at one's (aerobic) peak. Anyone who tries this here in Minnesota will discover that it stops working when the weather gets bad; there are too many variables that decide how "hard" a workout feels for this to be reliable. There's also no reason why one would have to limit oneself to aerobic running to follow progress this way; one could simply take an average over a week or month of running.

Still... looking at my own training plans, I'm surprised to see so much of Lydiard in it.

Steve vs the Experts #2: Van Aaken and Henderson

[This post is still in rough draft form.]


I was going to start with Arthur Lydiard, but that would require a second introductory post, so instead, I'm going to lead in with the proponents of long slow distance. Joe Henderson wrote "Long Slow Distance: the Humane Way to Train" in 1969 and "Run Farther, Run Faster" ca. 1980 and Ernst Van Aaken wrote "The Van Aaken Method" in 1976. I haven't read any of those in 30 years, so it's going to be impossible to discuss them fairly. I'll try to give an idea of the LSD method of training, however. Oddly, Henderson's book "Marathon Training" (1997,2003) has little useful information.

First a thought experiment. Imagine that you run exactly 5 miles in exactly 40 minutes every day for a year. This workout is completely comfortable, but you cannot improve, as you always do exactly the same run. Now, if you make one run per week 6 miles at the same pace, it's difficult at first, but becomes easier and your fitness improves slightly. If you later make that 6 miler 7 miles or make another 5 miler 6, you improve again. As long as you keep running further, you improve in fitness and eventually this improved fitness means that, if you ran 5 miles comfortably, you'd do it in less than the 40 minutes you used to take. In theory, one can improve indefinitely, without ever having to run fast.

Millions have attempted to do just that. It doesn't work very well for most runners, for a number of reasons. Van Aacken, recognizing that one ends up running the longer runs slower, had runners increase their mileage by running multiple times per day (all I really recall was that he had top 10K runners run a 10K four times per day). As odd as this sounds, Gerry Lindgren, one of the most talented 10K runners of all time, ran an average of 250 miles per week for a decade just this way in the 1960's.

To compare training regimens, I'm going to limit myself to the marathon and when possible, specifically to those running 2:15 - just because it's convenient. I'll try to write a typical schedule based on my own work following each method in turn.



Very Boring (and skippable)

When I started looking at training, I did it empirically, seeing how people trained who weren't following someone's plan (something perhaps impossible to do today). Marathoners, regardless of finish time, averaged 75 minutes of running per day (70-80 was common, 65 or 85 the extremes) and their longest run was 165 minutes (150-180 common, 135 or 195 unusual). At the 2:15 level, runners average training pace was one minute per mile slower than marathon race pace and 80% effort (ie, if one can race 10 miles in 60 minutes, a training run would be 10 miles in 60/0.80 or 75 minutes). Runners also raced 4-5% of their total miles, with half the time as a racing season, so 8-10% raced when racing. Additionally, runners usually spaced their races so that there was 1-2 days per mile raced between races.



It just happens that 80% of 2:15 turns out to be close to 165 minutes, so one could comfortably run a marathon for a long run at this level. One possible way of training would be to run a marathon every single day. The secret to doing this is racing oneself into shape. After two weeks of training one would race a 20K, then two weeks later a 25K, then a 30K and finally a marathon, with only the marathon being run all-out. This has one racing a marathon every 8 weeks, which with this mileage is possible for a long time. The problem, however, is obvious: almost no one can run that many miles without injury. Also, it's not a method that any runner not planning on running a world-class would have time to do.

An alternative that fits in better with my own ideas is:

M: 150-165 min.
T: 0-30 min.
W: 150-165
Th: 0-30
F: 0-30
Sa: 150-165 min. or race (20-25K on 4th week, Marathon on 8th)
S: 0-30

This makes for a manageable amount of work per week, but has some other built-in problems.



The whole point to this post is to give a contrast ot Lydiard's method, which has often been confused with Long Slow Distance training. That almost no one any longer follows the LSD method does not mean that it has no merit, but it cannot be recommended.

Steve vs the Experts #1

When I decided to start training for a marathon again, I did what everyone does: I checked to see if there were any new training books. Then I laughed at myself for doing that. We all hope that someone's come up with a magical formula that will guarantee results without hard work. Well, guess what? There's no such thing. I'm always appalled when people get interviewed after a spectacular race and get asked about their diet or their shoes; we have become a culture of people who want to believe that what separates us from our dreams isn't lack of talent or lack of training, but something we can get with a purchase.

One of the greatest evils in training is that information transfer is destroying innovation. One hundred years ago, the few people who ran each had to find their own way to succeed and their methods were extremely varied. Then, starting with the Olympics, people started finding out what others were doing and trying to adapt others' ideas to their own plans. Later, successful coaches started writing books and their dissemination caused everyone to start down the same paths. With each new book, people expected that all the faults of the previous ones had been exposed and that this newest one was the best way to train. Running magazines and then the internet accelerated the process of streamlining training methods; people assumed that, as top runners' times were decreasing, training was becoming closer and closer to optimal and that only minor refinements were being made - but that those refinements were crucial.

The results are ludicrous. The most recent book to become popular has been Brad Hudson's and its biggest effect has been that I now see people running hills on Mondays (always Mondays, never any other day). "Uphill sprints must be the secret, the one thing I've been neglecting. Those will get me my goal!" they seem to be telling themselves, neglecting 99% of the book.

The best runners invariably train for years without a coach. They just find what works for them. Later, they start listening to others, but they measure what they're hearing against their own experience. I think this is why most of the best runners in the world right now seem to be coming out of backwaters; they aren't brainwashed into a system before they begin, because they don't have access.

I came up with my own ideas on training and then I started collecting training manuals. I know of two others who did the same thing; Fred Wilt and Tim Noakes. Wilt was the women's track and cross-country coach at Purdue when I was there; he wrote three volumes of a book entitled "How They Train." [out of print] The first volume was a revelation to me, as it covered all the myriad training regimens from about 1880 to the 1940's. The second volume was less interesting, as it was less varied. By the third volume, everyone was following the same basic trends. In Hudson's book, "Run Faster," he admits his early training was heavily influenced by this third volume and that it took a long time to break from just following what everyone else did. Noakes' book "The Lore of Running," covers a lot of the ground of Wilt's, then goes on to sports medicine and athletics journals (all of which I'd read as well) and details the training of some ultramarathoners and triathletes (of which I was only vaguely familiar, as it wasn't of interest to me until recently). Wilt knew how to coach, but didn't know the physiological aspects of running well; Noakes has published many scientific articles on physiology, but doesn't know much about coaching.

Like most people, my thoughts on training had started to crystallize and there came a time when I felt there were a few rules, all carved in stone. That's when I started running ultramarathons; for at huge distances, all my pre-concieved "rules" would break down and I'd be forced to learn new ways. I hoped that what I learned I could apply to shorter distances as well.

Now that I've started the swing back to shorter distances, I decided it was time to re-evaluate what the experts had written. Seeing old works with fresh eyes, I might find things I'd previously overlooked, as they didn't fit in then with what I believed. I'm going to start with Lydiard and follow in the general order of publication (I have a lot that's out of print, one that I can't find) up to the present.