I have been doing a considerable amount of research of training programs
used by everyone and assessing comparing the key issues.

The idea that has grown is that the simplistic argument of athletes doing
either
1/ A low volume program that has high intensity - the supporters of these
styles of programs talk specificity and aim for developments in particular
in the anaerobic system.
2./A high volume program of lower intensity (so that the volume is
manageable). The supporters of these sorts of programs will talk about
longer term development and the risks associated with excessive intensity
and anaerobic work that is too big a part of other peoples programs.

It seems very apparent that both extremes have key points and weaknesses.
However I believe that a smart combination of both is the answer not one or
the other. The solution is also not simply intermediate volume and
intermediate intensity. Although a successful program for an athlete may
look like this.

There is huge benefits in a Lydiard like program - where athletes build up
their capillarization and mitochondria density from a large volume of steady
work. Also adding into this recovery runs at an intensity that is so low
for them to be true recovery runs. I believe most athletes do these too fast
initially. The key training element needed to be added to a Lydiard type
program in the 21st century is sessions all year aimed at improving race
pace economy. This means running some reps at race pace relaxed and with
enough rest that the session could not be considered to be a lactic session
of any kind eg. 3 x 4 x 150m rest 3min at 800m pace with 6min between sets.
This could be an easy session and would be run well within the athletes
ability almost all year. The other addition to a Lydiard type program would
be to make the most of technology and sports medical services such as
physiotherapy to ensure the athlete is in optimal biomechnical condition.


Athletes who are used to high intensity lower volume training could also
benefit I believe by having at least 4 months of the year operating at a
lower stress intensity and integrating some longer runs into their training
maybe 2 x 60min runs and a 90min run. These can be performed a any
manageable intensity. This will prevent the athletes from missing out on the
gains in capillarization that comes from this form of training.

Statistically it seems that most of the worlds top athletes who also have
longevity come from higher volume programs of possible a slightly lower
intensity.

There are shortcuts to made with intensity to get to the top but possible as
the athletes try to train more and more intense that a point can be reached
pyschologically or physically where extra improvement is prevented by the
overtraining stress. The athletes in many countries that have excelled do
seem to be athletes that have accumulated a large volume of training base of
many years with many African athletes maturing first.

I know Andrew Bucher was performing a program with a good mix of intensities
and volumes a few years ago. He was training for 800m with more than 140km a
week during parts of the year, later on doing heavy weights and good plyos
for power and ofcourse all the intense speedwork necessary to run 1:42

In summary,
beware of intensity only in a program
beware of excessive volume at expense of runing form and ease of race speed
dont discount the value of doing low intensity speed work at race pace not
all speed sessions need to be intense and targetting energy system
development.
beware of extremes and avoid overstressing the athlete - sometimes more at a
lower intensity is easier for the athlete to cope with.

regards
Steve Bennett
www.oztrack.com


MailFiler <http://www.mailfiler.com> [SJB-F1DIKP4]