Few can argue with Lydiard’s success as a coach, but his system has not stood up to the steady forward march of running science. The notions that fast training is anaerobic and that lactic acid can injure muscle tissue are now outdated. Furthermore, the Lydiard system does not address the specific goals of optimization of vO2max and maximal running speed, which are key predictors of endurance-running performance. British coach Frank Horwill has criticized the Lydiard approach, noting that approximately 110 kilometers (68 mi) of weekly running are all that are necessary to optimize aerobic capacity; Lydiard recommended approximately 160 kilometers (99 mi) per week, including a Sunday run of 35 kilometers (22 mi) completed over mountainous terrain, if possible. Horwill has also contended that the Lydiard approach increases the risks of injury because of accumulated distance and psychological burnout.8
Training Blocks
Historically, endurance runners and their coaches have approached this organizational challenge by arranging training into blocks, or mesocycles. A block of training is simply the period during which a specific mode of training is emphasized and thus a specific outcome is sought. For example, a traditional speed block might last 4 to 6 weeks and contain many workouts conducted at high speeds, with the goal being to lift maximal running velocity and establish a powerful kick for the final moments of competitions.
A traditional base block, or period, might also last 4 to 6 weeks and would include gradually increasing amounts of submaximal running with the goals being the establishment of running-specific strength and an increase in aerobic capacity. If a base block is placed before a speed block or some other block in a runner’s program, then one can say that training has been periodized. Periodization is nothing more than the arrangement of training blocks in a specific way with the ultimate goal to optimize the key endurance-performance variables.
That makes periodization sound simple enough, but in fact the process of periodizing training is far from simple. Important, difficult questions need to be answered correctly in order to produce the best periodization plan: How many different blocks should be included in the overall program? What are the proper goals for each block? How long should blocks last? How should the workouts be arranged within the blocks, and which training sessions should be included? How much time is needed to peak prior to the most important competition? Should blocks be repeated after they have all been completed, and if so, how should they be upgraded for the next major training cycle? These are among the fundamental questions of training and periodization theory.
Basic One-Block Systems
In the simplest training program, there is actually just one block that lasts all year long. For example, many individuals simply run several times a week throughout the year, usually at steady, submaximal paces, with an aim of completing a certain weekly volume of running, often 30 to 50 kilometers (18-30 mi) or so. The overriding goals might simply be to expand aerobic capacity (O2max) and to run an occasional 5K, as well as to lose weight and improve overall health. There is no periodization because the training contains just one block. This kind of program will bring fitness up to a certain level and then preserve that fitness, but it is not ideal for the competitive runner.
Complex One-Block Systems
A slightly more complicated one-block system is used by many endurance runners. In this plan, there is also an emphasis on attaining a certain threshold training volume; a typical week is constructed so that a speed workout is conducted on Tuesday, usually with intervals at approximately 5K race pace; some type of hill work or tempo training is carried out on Thursday, with tempo training understood as running continuously at a relatively hard intensity for 20 minutes or more; and a long run is reserved for the weekend. The specific goals for this system are often unspoken, but one can see that the arrangement might initially have an impact on most of the seven key performance variables.
The problem is that with the single block, there is often very little progression. Progression is defined as a gradual forward movement to different forms of training that vary significantly from initial training formats and are also more challenging and productive in skill, intensity, or duration. Without new training stimuli (i.e., without progression), a runner’s rate of physiological improvement slows and then falls to zero. Surprisingly, many runners expect a single-block kind of system to provide continued benefits and fitness upgrades and become very frustrated and even disillusioned when performances stagnate. Without progression and periodization, training cannot move past a physiological dead end.
Two-Block Systems
Many runners employ a two-block system, with one period emphasizing the development of endurance and the other focused on developing greater speed. The contents of each block vary greatly from runner to runner, but the endurance block ordinarily contains substantial amounts of running below maximal and race-pace velocities, while the speed block emphasizes a higher frequency of workouts conducted at race paces or faster.
As described previously, this approach is sometimes called the wave periodization training pattern because runners initially build their volume to a rather high level, creating an extended distance wave, and then let the distance wave at least partially collapse while setting up a greater frequency of high-quality workouts in an intensity wave. According to conventional wisdom, a runner is ready to accomplish a personal record or perform extremely well in competition once the intensity wave has peaked. After the competitive season is over, the runner rests for awhile and then catches another wave to begin a new season of training.
Although attractive and simple, the two-block wave pattern is far from optimal for the competitive distance runner. For one thing, the stamina and resistance to fatigue acquired during the first block is specific to the submaximal paces used during training. Rather than developing the ability to run fast for a longer period of time, the runner is developing the capacity to run slowly for extended periods.
An additional difficulty is that many endurance runners find increasing maximal running velocity, a key predictor of performance, to be a difficult undertaking; in the two-block pattern, improvement in maximal running velocity is ignored in the first block and treated lightly in the second.
Tracking the Elusive Best Plan
So what is the best periodization plan? Exercise scientists have had a great deal to say about periodization theory but have provided very little data concerning the merits of various periodization programs. One reason for the lack of solid facts about periodization is that meaningful research on the topic needs to cover broad time frames. To understand which periodization plan is best, it’s necessary to understand how an endurance athlete should arrange his or her training each week, each month, and over the course of an entire year or longer. It is difficult to imagine that any 2- to 3-month periodization plan would provide the magic bullet that hits the fitness bull’s eye and produces optimal performance.
To periodize training, many runners and coaches rely on a system developed by Jack Daniels, a highly respected coach and exercise scientist. Daniels has developed a popular emphasis-periodization training plan with a strong scientific basis.9 In Daniels’ system, there are four different blocks, also known as emphasis periods or mesocycles:
A base period, often lasting 4 to 6 weeks. In this phase, a runner simply expands training volume gradually while running, for the most part, at moderate, submaximal speeds. The basic goals are to increase strength and endurance.
A O2max block, also lasting 4 to 6 weeks. In this block, a runner emphasizes interval workouts conducted at 5K intensity, with work-interval lengths often set at 800 to 1,200 meters (0.5-0.75 mi) with recoveries equal in duration to the work intervals. Since 5K intensity is ordinarily about 95 percent of O2max, such intervals should push O2max upward, as Daniels has proposed. As the block’s name suggests, the basic goal is to augment O2max, a predictor of performance for an individual runner but not a predictor of performance among runners with similar training backgrounds.
A lactate-threshold block, lasting 4 to 6 weeks. The goal is to increase lactate-threshold velocity, and the key workouts include longer intervals of 1,600 to 2,000 meters (1 to 1.2 mi) at 10K race speed and tempo runs, or continuous efforts lasting 20 minutes or longer conducted at lactate-threshold velocity, which for Daniels is about a 15K (9 mi) race pace. For those runners who never race the 15K (9 mi) distance, 15K tempo is usually about 8 seconds per mile slower than a 10K pace.
An economy block, again with a typical duration of 4 to 6 weeks. The key economy workouts are reps carried out on the track at a pace that is 4 seconds per 400 meters faster than 5K tempo. Often the reps are 400 meters in length; recoveries are longer in duration than the reps. The goal of this block is to enhance economy (how did you guess that?).
After the four blocks are completed, a runner is believed to be ready for competition. The value of the Daniels system is immediately clear: It emphasizes the improvement of three variables—O2max, lactate-threshold speed, and running economy—that can have an impact on an individual runner’s endurance performance. Another plus is that volume and intensity of training can easily be adjusted in each of the four blocks.
The Daniels plan is also quite sophisticated: In a 6-week economy block, for example, a runner might emphasize the development of better economy by completing seven total economy reps or hill sessions but at the same time address continuous improvement of lactate threshold and O2max. The runner might also conduct five workouts that advance lactate threshold and three that improve O2max during the economy block, preserving or advancing the gains that have already been made in those variables and thus averaging 2.5 quality workouts per week, in effect completing two difficult sessions the first week and three the next.
The potential weaknesses of the Daniels system lie in what it leaves out and also in its logical inconsistency. For example, there is no block for vO2max, even though this is a key predictor of performance; in fairness, though, Daniels’ blocks of O2max and economy, taken together, should have a positive effect on vO2max. There is also no emphasis on running-specific strength: The strength acquired in the base period is specific to the submaximal paces used during that phase of training, and the stimuli for increasing maximal running speed are rather weak.
The logical inconsistency quickly becomes apparent when one examines specific workouts within the blocks. Take the intervals at 5K paced in the O2max block, for example. At the desired intensity of 5K speed, these intervals should produce improvements in the heart’s pumping ability and the capacity of the leg muscles to use oxygen. As a result, O2max increase is a near certainty unless a runner has already topped out because of prior training. However, note that 95 percent of O2max is well above lactate-threshold speed, and thus the workout will produce generous amounts of blood lactate, nicely enhancing lactate-threshold velocity. Running fast at 5K speed should also improve running economy in general and specifically running economy at a 5K pace. The workout is simultaneously having effects on O2max, lactate threshold, and running economy, and yet it is called a O2max session. In truth, the workout could be a lactate-threshold effort in the lactate block or an economy driver in the economy segment of the overall plan.
Hill workouts present a similar dilemma. Although they undoubtedly improve running-specific leg strength and thus economy, they also elicit high rates of oxygen consumption and produce high levels of blood lactate. Thus, a hill session is an economy workout while being great for O2max and lactate-threshold speed, too.
Four-Phase Emphasis Periodization
A scientifically-based and more logically consistent periodization plan has been developed slowly by coaches and exercise scientists over the last decade. Ironically, this program depends on strength training for its backbone of blocks, even though strength training has historically been considered to be rather unsuitable for endurance runners, partly based on concerns about building excess muscle mass and partly because strength training is thought to be anaerobic while endurance running is aerobic. These concerns have proven to be unfounded.
The new system has four phases; each generally lasts 3 to 6 weeks. The phases do not have to be equal in length. For example, if a runner has great general strength but poor maximal speed, the first phase can be shortened and the last block lengthened.
An initial skill and general-strength phase, during which running skill, especially form and cadence, are emphasized, and whole-body strength is developed fully. The goals of this phase are to eliminate bad running habits (e.g., poor foot-strike pattern, slow cadence, improper form) and to promote a vast upgrade in overall strength, not just leg strength. Establishing optimal form improves running capacity immediately and heightens the quality of all workouts because average running velocity increases; therefore, each training session becomes a more potent producer of fitness. Optimal form also permits subsequent gains in running-specific strength to be channeled directly into powerful running instead of being wasted on suboptimal movements. Gains in whole-body strength promote resistance to fatigue and lead to more economical running, and the workouts that enhance whole-body strength (e.g., circuit sessions) also lift lactate threshold.
A running-specific strength phase, during which strength is optimized for all components of running gait: initial ground contact, midstance, toe-off, and swing. The obvious goal for this phase is to optimize running-specific strength, which enhances running economy dramatically and heightens resistance to fatigue. Augmenting running-specific strength is also a foundation for improving maximal running speed because the latter depends so heavily on applying more force to the ground with each step. Finally, the running-specific strength phase heightens preparation for the next stage of training—hill work.
A hill-training phase, during which running-specific strength is advanced to an ultimate degree—after all, surging up hills is the most specific form of running-specific strengthening—and O2max, vO2max, economy, lactate-threshold speed, and resistance to fatigue are also augmented.
An explosive-training phase, in which high-speed drills and exercises are used relentlessly; overall training quality, or average running speed, soars. The combination of explosive training and the prior work on general strength, running-specific strength, and hill-running capacity creates an unbeatable upswing in fitness.
From a biomechanical standpoint, a runner is now able to put more force on the ground with each step—thanks to phases two and three—and also apply that force more quickly, that is, spend less time on the ground per step, thanks to the explosive work. The result is a dramatic increase in maximal running velocity along with corresponding advancements in vO2max, running economy, lactate-threshold speed, and resistance to fatigue, all of which are spiked because of the intensity of the training. After the completion of phase four, a runner has improved all seven components of running fitness and is prepared for his or her best possible performances.
Within the framework of these four phases, high-quality running workouts progress over time and continuously promote improvements in the key performance variables. There is a gradual progression in volume of training and a steady advance in quality training, the percent of total work carried out above lactate-threshold velocity. The quality workouts vary significantly over time to increase motivation for training and to prevent the fitness stagnation that can result from repetitive training.
Conclusion
Of the periodization systems outlined in this chapter, the most attractive option for distance coaches and runners is certainly four-phase emphasis periodization (EP). This system identifies the factors that endurance runners need to optimize; it incorporates the enhancement of these factors into discrete training cycles so that a runner can be fully prepared for competition at the end of an EP macrocycle. Surprisingly, optimal EP includes phases of training that are not part of many endurance runners’ preparations for competition.
Coaches and runners are often perplexed about how to set up their training blocks and periodize training properly, but they
shouldn’t be. The process is relatively simple using the four-phase system. This plan puts heavy positive pressure on all seven performance variables and is so varied that it also keeps runners mentally sharp. With its emphasis on strength training, the system also reduces the risk of injury and thus makes consistent training possible. The result is a high likelihood of reaching lofty goals and setting exciting personal records.
Chapter 23
Integrated Strength and Endurance Training Programs
Traditional training for endurance runners has been relatively simple in composition. It includes a standard array of workouts—interval sessions, tempo runs, hill workouts, an occasional session of fartlek running, and long runs—and tends to avoid strength training since it is assumed that kind of training has a negative impact. Conventional endurance-running training is also rather simple in its progressions and periodization, with a buildup in volume followed by an increase in intensity, including an abbreviated period devoted to increasing maximal running velocity, even though this is a key predictor of running performance and many endurance runners have poorly developed speed.
These facile conceptions of training pay little attention to optimizing the seven key performance variables (see chapter 22 for discussions of training systems that address some or all of these variables and individual chapters on the key variables), the factors identified by exercise scientists as being predictors of performance. Fortunately, exercise science has marched forward steadily over the last 25 years, and at least a partial understanding of the training techniques required to optimize the seven variables has been attained. This chapter outlines a new and productive way of carrying out strength training for running with key progressions that enhance performance variables. It also describes an optimal way to warm up before workouts and demonstrates how to incorporate strength training and running sessions in an extended half-marathon training program. Many of the exercises used in the programs discussed in this chapter are those that have been presented in detail in chapters 13 and 14. The special warm-up and half-marathon training programs also contain additional exercises; these are presented in this chapter after descriptions of the programs.
Running Science Page 32