The Lydiard Method – A Scientific Perspective.
Part 2: Specific Preparation
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science), CSCS, PES
The term ‘General Preparation’ is used ad nauseum in popular periodization and training methodology texts. However, when it comes to the application of a general preparatory phase, few coaches compare to the literal application of Sir Arthur Lydiard. Lydiard had all of his athletes, from 800m track stars to world class marathoners, performing essentially the same basic training routine through their base phase of training. As previously stated, the bulk of this basic training was performed at an intensity below marathon race-pace. Reasons for this approach were given in the previous article. However, to state that all training was performed at an easy effort would be an oversimplification. The reality is that, within his elite athlete’s ‘basic week’, training paces ranged from 70-100% of the athlete’s best aerobic effort (Lydiard, 1999).
In our language, this represents training intensities ranging from easy (or sub AeT) to hard (or Functional Threshold). While, in reality, this progressive increase in training intensity was still a part of the phase of general preparation for his athletes, in the context of long course triathlon, this second phase of training is much more similar to our specific preparatory phase.
The key to the Lydiard method is not so much in the inclusion of all fitness components – most coaches that I know use a variety of training intensities from sub AeT up to (and beyond) Functional Threshold. The key, and the thing that continues to distinguish Lydiard from other coaches, is in the slow and steady progressive inclusion of the fitness components in the athlete’s program over a long period of time.
From a perspective of practical application, the approach to General Preparation 1 is summed up by Arthur as follows:
“Start training by first running against time rather than timing the miles run. Get yourself running fit so that you are capable of running long distances continuously. Do this by running on out and back courses. By running out, say, 10 minutes, turning around and running back in about the same time. If it takes you longer to return then you should realize that you went too fast on the outward journey and so are forced to slow down upon the return journey. You will soon learn about your present capabilities and fitness and so adjust your efforts accordingly. Progressively, the running time daily should be increased so that you will find the training progressively easier and your possibilities of increasing the running time greater….”
As an aside, the ability to objectively monitor fatigue both within a session and over the week is one of the strengths of having a very simple basic week, as outlined by Lydiard. Arthur’s simple applications of this point above are reflective of some of the guiding principles I use in the athletes I work with:
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science), CSCS, PES
The term ‘General Preparation’ is used ad nauseum in popular periodization and training methodology texts. However, when it comes to the application of a general preparatory phase, few coaches compare to the literal application of Sir Arthur Lydiard. Lydiard had all of his athletes, from 800m track stars to world class marathoners, performing essentially the same basic training routine through their base phase of training. As previously stated, the bulk of this basic training was performed at an intensity below marathon race-pace. Reasons for this approach were given in the previous article. However, to state that all training was performed at an easy effort would be an oversimplification. The reality is that, within his elite athlete’s ‘basic week’, training paces ranged from 70-100% of the athlete’s best aerobic effort (Lydiard, 1999).
In our language, this represents training intensities ranging from easy (or sub AeT) to hard (or Functional Threshold). While, in reality, this progressive increase in training intensity was still a part of the phase of general preparation for his athletes, in the context of long course triathlon, this second phase of training is much more similar to our specific preparatory phase.
The key to the Lydiard method is not so much in the inclusion of all fitness components – most coaches that I know use a variety of training intensities from sub AeT up to (and beyond) Functional Threshold. The key, and the thing that continues to distinguish Lydiard from other coaches, is in the slow and steady progressive inclusion of the fitness components in the athlete’s program over a long period of time.
From a perspective of practical application, the approach to General Preparation 1 is summed up by Arthur as follows:
“Start training by first running against time rather than timing the miles run. Get yourself running fit so that you are capable of running long distances continuously. Do this by running on out and back courses. By running out, say, 10 minutes, turning around and running back in about the same time. If it takes you longer to return then you should realize that you went too fast on the outward journey and so are forced to slow down upon the return journey. You will soon learn about your present capabilities and fitness and so adjust your efforts accordingly. Progressively, the running time daily should be increased so that you will find the training progressively easier and your possibilities of increasing the running time greater….”
As an aside, the ability to objectively monitor fatigue both within a session and over the week is one of the strengths of having a very simple basic week, as outlined by Lydiard. Arthur’s simple applications of this point above are reflective of some of the guiding principles I use in the athletes I work with:
• If you slow down markedly at the end of a session, the session was too long or too hard.
• If you slow down markedly at the end of a week then the week was too big or too hard.
And perhaps most applicable to long course athletes:
• If you slow down (or are unable to maintain your basic volume) over the course of a year, then the early phase of training was too much or too hard.
But, since the topic of this piece relates to the question of Specific Preparation for the IM athlete, let’s move on to Arthur’s take on phase II:
“Once you are sure that you are able to complete your weekly schedule & are able to run for 2hrs with no problem, start to watch your per mile pace as follows: Run over your measured courses for one week without any influencing factors such as a watch, per mile pace or another runner. Try to run evenly in effort and as strong as your condition allows. Start your watch at the start of the runs so as to be able to take the overall time of each run at the conclusion; this giving an estimate of your capability and condition at this stage of your training……”
“….the following week you should use these times for control and run the same course at comparable times by checking each mile as you pass the mile markers. For example, if you took one hour to run a ten mile course the trial week, then the next week you should set out to run 6 minutes for each mile, allowing for hills and hollows. After a week or so, you will find that the previous times used for control are becoming too slow for you, as your Oxygen uptake improves. So, it will be necessary to increase the average speed for the distance by lowering the average mile time down to 5:55 per mile or thereabouts. In this way, it is possible to keep running at your best aerobic effort rather than too fast or too slow and so to gain the best results for the time spent training.”(Lydiard, 1999)
In other words, your simple objective for phase 2 of training (after the phase 1 habit of establishing the basic week) is to raise your average training velocity over the course of the week. This can be where many athletes come undone. The key point here is to progressively increase the specific content of your key sessions without compromising the rest of your week, or put another way, average training velocity over the course of the week should increase, not decrease with the addition of your main sets during the specific preparation period. Note the word “preparation” in the description for this phase. We’re preparing for a best effort, not giving one every other day.
So, we have established that we go harder than what we did in our first phase of training, or as Arthur puts it, we train at our “best aerobic effort” during this phase. From a % intensity perspective, as already mentioned, this may (eventually) vary from 70-100% of our best aerobic pace. But, before I go into how we go about determining the relative intensity for each day within the training week, it is important to acknowledge that at this point, or what I will call phase 3 in Arthur’s developmental model, we are getting into some pretty elite stuff. To vary the training intensity over the aerobic spectrum from day to day first assumes that the athlete has adequate fitness to fully recover their glycogen reserves within 24hrs of the preceding session. Development of this quality alone can take a good amount of time, as indicated, in the previous article by Bill Sweetenham’s multi-year emphasis on training at or below the Aerobic Threshold before even allowing any higher quality aerobic training in his young swimmers (Sweetenham, 2003)
So, assuming we are at the point that the athlete is able to perform a good quantity of steady aerobic training and fully recover for the next session, how do we determine when and where to schedule the 100% efforts v’s the 70% efforts. While Arthur points out that it is never the coaches job to tell an athlete how fast to go on a given day, basic recommendations, with regard to effort can be made. Since Lydiard lived in an era preceding heart rate monitors, power meters, lactate testers, etc. etc., he used a simple effort scale that ranged from ¼ effort to full effort to describe his training assignments. Typically, the 3 long days per week were of a lower effort level (1/4 effort) while the shorter days were faster (1/2-3/4 effort). However, the guiding principle for the afternoon sessions, was that the athlete is always to run as fast as their condition allows. Naturally, when fit, this meant that they would run a quicker pace per mile for the shorter sessions than they did for the long runs. However, and this is key, the overall objective of increasing the average training speed from week to week was always kept at the fore-front.
As stated in the previous article, there is a good amount of variability in the rate at which an athlete is able to replenish their muscle glycogen stores. Several factors come into play here including the intensity of effort, the type of muscle fibers used and the aerobic fitness of the individual. At sub-maximal efforts, some athletes will be able to replenish their glycogen reserves completely within 24 hours. Some will not. Lydiard’s progressive integration of the hard-easy approach to training into the weekly schedule of the athlete is a good, practical way of taking these physiological limitations into account.
For example, a young middle distance runner’s initial general preparatory week, following their introduction to the Lydiard system may look something like this:
• If you slow down markedly at the end of a week then the week was too big or too hard.
And perhaps most applicable to long course athletes:
• If you slow down (or are unable to maintain your basic volume) over the course of a year, then the early phase of training was too much or too hard.
But, since the topic of this piece relates to the question of Specific Preparation for the IM athlete, let’s move on to Arthur’s take on phase II:
“Once you are sure that you are able to complete your weekly schedule & are able to run for 2hrs with no problem, start to watch your per mile pace as follows: Run over your measured courses for one week without any influencing factors such as a watch, per mile pace or another runner. Try to run evenly in effort and as strong as your condition allows. Start your watch at the start of the runs so as to be able to take the overall time of each run at the conclusion; this giving an estimate of your capability and condition at this stage of your training……”
“….the following week you should use these times for control and run the same course at comparable times by checking each mile as you pass the mile markers. For example, if you took one hour to run a ten mile course the trial week, then the next week you should set out to run 6 minutes for each mile, allowing for hills and hollows. After a week or so, you will find that the previous times used for control are becoming too slow for you, as your Oxygen uptake improves. So, it will be necessary to increase the average speed for the distance by lowering the average mile time down to 5:55 per mile or thereabouts. In this way, it is possible to keep running at your best aerobic effort rather than too fast or too slow and so to gain the best results for the time spent training.”(Lydiard, 1999)
In other words, your simple objective for phase 2 of training (after the phase 1 habit of establishing the basic week) is to raise your average training velocity over the course of the week. This can be where many athletes come undone. The key point here is to progressively increase the specific content of your key sessions without compromising the rest of your week, or put another way, average training velocity over the course of the week should increase, not decrease with the addition of your main sets during the specific preparation period. Note the word “preparation” in the description for this phase. We’re preparing for a best effort, not giving one every other day.
So, we have established that we go harder than what we did in our first phase of training, or as Arthur puts it, we train at our “best aerobic effort” during this phase. From a % intensity perspective, as already mentioned, this may (eventually) vary from 70-100% of our best aerobic pace. But, before I go into how we go about determining the relative intensity for each day within the training week, it is important to acknowledge that at this point, or what I will call phase 3 in Arthur’s developmental model, we are getting into some pretty elite stuff. To vary the training intensity over the aerobic spectrum from day to day first assumes that the athlete has adequate fitness to fully recover their glycogen reserves within 24hrs of the preceding session. Development of this quality alone can take a good amount of time, as indicated, in the previous article by Bill Sweetenham’s multi-year emphasis on training at or below the Aerobic Threshold before even allowing any higher quality aerobic training in his young swimmers (Sweetenham, 2003)
So, assuming we are at the point that the athlete is able to perform a good quantity of steady aerobic training and fully recover for the next session, how do we determine when and where to schedule the 100% efforts v’s the 70% efforts. While Arthur points out that it is never the coaches job to tell an athlete how fast to go on a given day, basic recommendations, with regard to effort can be made. Since Lydiard lived in an era preceding heart rate monitors, power meters, lactate testers, etc. etc., he used a simple effort scale that ranged from ¼ effort to full effort to describe his training assignments. Typically, the 3 long days per week were of a lower effort level (1/4 effort) while the shorter days were faster (1/2-3/4 effort). However, the guiding principle for the afternoon sessions, was that the athlete is always to run as fast as their condition allows. Naturally, when fit, this meant that they would run a quicker pace per mile for the shorter sessions than they did for the long runs. However, and this is key, the overall objective of increasing the average training speed from week to week was always kept at the fore-front.
As stated in the previous article, there is a good amount of variability in the rate at which an athlete is able to replenish their muscle glycogen stores. Several factors come into play here including the intensity of effort, the type of muscle fibers used and the aerobic fitness of the individual. At sub-maximal efforts, some athletes will be able to replenish their glycogen reserves completely within 24 hours. Some will not. Lydiard’s progressive integration of the hard-easy approach to training into the weekly schedule of the athlete is a good, practical way of taking these physiological limitations into account.
For example, a young middle distance runner’s initial general preparatory week, following their introduction to the Lydiard system may look something like this:
Monday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Tuesday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Wednesday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Thursday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Friday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Saturday: 2hrs @ 75% MHR.
In other words, through trial and error, the coach and athlete have established that a heart rate of 75% of the athlete’s maximum results in the fastest average overall speed for the week.
However, as the athlete develops in the specific preparatory period, and their improved aerobic fitness translates to faster glycogen resynthesis, the athlete may be able to use the shorter training days as higher intensity sessions rather than recovery sessions while, at the same time, increasing the average speed of the basic week.
The week at the end of the specific prep period may look something more like:
Tuesday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Wednesday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Thursday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Friday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Saturday: 2hrs @ 75% MHR.
In other words, through trial and error, the coach and athlete have established that a heart rate of 75% of the athlete’s maximum results in the fastest average overall speed for the week.
However, as the athlete develops in the specific preparatory period, and their improved aerobic fitness translates to faster glycogen resynthesis, the athlete may be able to use the shorter training days as higher intensity sessions rather than recovery sessions while, at the same time, increasing the average speed of the basic week.
The week at the end of the specific prep period may look something more like:
Monday: 1hr @ 80% MHR
Tuesday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Wednesday: 1hr, w/2x20 minutes @ 85% MHR (and the balance at 75%)
Thursday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Friday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Saturday: 2hrs @ 75% MHR.
In this way, not only has the athlete improved his/her fitness and performance, but also their tolerance for training.
For an elite long course athlete in his specific preparatory period, specificity may dictate that the higher intensity efforts be placed on the longer days, e.g.:
Tuesday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Wednesday: 1hr, w/2x20 minutes @ 85% MHR (and the balance at 75%)
Thursday: 1.5hrs @ 75% MHR
Friday: 1hr @ 75% MHR
Saturday: 2hrs @ 75% MHR.
In this way, not only has the athlete improved his/her fitness and performance, but also their tolerance for training.
For an elite long course athlete in his specific preparatory period, specificity may dictate that the higher intensity efforts be placed on the longer days, e.g.:
Monday: 1hr @ 75%
Tuesday: 1.5hrs w/1hr @ main set @ 80%
Wednesday 1hr @ 75%
Etc.
Slight difference in protocol, but the principle, and the net glycogen usage over the course of the week remain the same.
Lydiard concluded that, for his marathon runners, this was as far as the specific preparation needed to go. He found that if they could preserve their training volume (prior to taper) and average training speed, while including some submaximal speed sessions, there was no need to perform a devoted intensive speed phase (which he did with his 800m-10K athletes). (Lydiard, 1999)
It is the author’s opinion that if this is true for elite marathoners (whose event duration is in the 2hr range), then it is also true for triathletes of all distances. At the very elite level, moving into phase 3 of Arthur’s general development, where the program takes on a structure that preserves peripheral aerobic development while providing a greater stimulus to higher threshold aerobic motor units and central adaptations may be useful. In a tactical race, at the elite level, these can become limiters. In addition, at the very elite level, the cardiac reserve of the athlete can become limiting. However, as previously stated, we are at the very top of the pyramid when these factors become a real issue. For the vast majority of long course athletes, the race itself is nothing more than a steady-state time trial and therefore, as boring as it sounds, the sub-elite athlete’s year is all about Arthur’s first 2 phases of development:
Tuesday: 1.5hrs w/1hr @ main set @ 80%
Wednesday 1hr @ 75%
Etc.
Slight difference in protocol, but the principle, and the net glycogen usage over the course of the week remain the same.
Lydiard concluded that, for his marathon runners, this was as far as the specific preparation needed to go. He found that if they could preserve their training volume (prior to taper) and average training speed, while including some submaximal speed sessions, there was no need to perform a devoted intensive speed phase (which he did with his 800m-10K athletes). (Lydiard, 1999)
It is the author’s opinion that if this is true for elite marathoners (whose event duration is in the 2hr range), then it is also true for triathletes of all distances. At the very elite level, moving into phase 3 of Arthur’s general development, where the program takes on a structure that preserves peripheral aerobic development while providing a greater stimulus to higher threshold aerobic motor units and central adaptations may be useful. In a tactical race, at the elite level, these can become limiters. In addition, at the very elite level, the cardiac reserve of the athlete can become limiting. However, as previously stated, we are at the very top of the pyramid when these factors become a real issue. For the vast majority of long course athletes, the race itself is nothing more than a steady-state time trial and therefore, as boring as it sounds, the sub-elite athlete’s year is all about Arthur’s first 2 phases of development:
1. General Preparation: Habituating their basic training week.
2. Specific Preparation: Increasing the average speed (and steady-state component) within that week.
The quickest way to get to the top of that pyramid (where other issues become limiting) is to first fully accomplish these two objectives.
References available upon request.
2. Specific Preparation: Increasing the average speed (and steady-state component) within that week.
The quickest way to get to the top of that pyramid (where other issues become limiting) is to first fully accomplish these two objectives.
References available upon request.
<< Home