Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners

What? Surely Lydiard never said anything close to "the anaerobic it´s the important one and the determinant one system to contribute to the performance".On the contrary, Lydiard said that:- the aerobic phase ultimately determines your performance level- the anaerobic phase is the least important

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Curiously or not, it´s Lydiard that says that the anaerobic it´s the important one and the determinant one system to contribute to the performance, other way he wouldn´t prescribe hard intervals day-in-day out PRECISELY during the anaerobic block.

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

Yes I brought up Murray Halberg. It was in a completely different, almost completely unrelated, context, in a kind of historical timeline to show that any "unlimited aerobic" comments come decades after Lydiard's system was mature (and coincidentally Halberg and Magee were the first athletes to use Lydiard's mature system from the beginning of their career), so the "unlimited aerobic" concept could not have possibly influenced the method. But never mind. That doesn't matter. I'm no longer surprised by the discontinuity in these kinds of discussions.

Easy to justify the discontinuity of the discuss. The reason is because I don´t reply to you also. Since we can´t approach Lydiard totality of aspects in one post, some posts or one thread or few threads then I try to fix and focus the debate with one precise individual that posts, and I try not go further or distance on that issue of the large subject. But then, what happens it´s that comes someone that about the same subject or a different one introduces another line of argumentation. We start with one part, one limited of the issue of the large Lydiard subject, then someone inflates the discuss.

For this reason my arguments might seem inadequate to your argument.

About Murray, My original intention is to prove that Lydiard was wrong about the analysis he did about the runners of the period of Murray ad you can add Magee. He was wrong that by interval training or most of other kind of methods training of that Murray period did train wrongly and poor than what the training he built that he use on Murray and Magee. I was commenting precisely Northern Star that he said that the reason why Lydiard did built his method is because he saw too much intervals and that he felt that with so many Interval training volume the runner doesn´t improve and progress as with aerobic training . Then you add the Murray argument , that Lydiard by experiment his kind of training did realize that he did an huge progress. Or Lydiard (and your conclusion) is wrong by two reasons. One is the factual one: the other world class top runners from the period of Murray or every other WITHOU FOLLOW the Lydiard type of training – namely doing intervals all year round, and namely doing intervals during the introductory phase – DID PERFORMANCES AND RESULTS AT THE LEVEL OF MURRAY AND OTHERS. We might name Vladimir Kuts, Gordon Pirie, etc and as you might know they all train by the interval training system with intervals all year round but they did performances at the level of category that those from the same period and from the Lydiard training.

It´s that all I wanted to say. I can´t resume the history of the distance training from more than 50 years in one post. I just focus on that period because some (and among some you) did use the Murray study case and the 50´s. But it´s not you that did introduce that Lydiard starts to built his method in the 50s nd it´s not you that after that you introduce the difference from the Lydiard training concepts of the 50´s and the 60s and the late decades, that changed ? That changed a bit, it´s true, but since the star and the creation that is based in false conclusions, in inappropriate arguments, in the built of weird methodology and weird periodisation and weird principles, by some mystification about how effective is Lydiard training and superior to the other methods, that doesn´t either.

Do you want to know what I think what´s been wrong from Lydiard analysis when he criticizes the other methods, namely the methods that did intervals all year round, be the interval training straight or be every other one ?

It´s because Lydiard is right about the need of more volume aerobic training, what most of the runners of the 50s and 60s that did follow the interval training method or just follow intervals year round didn´t. Some of the runners in the 50s and 60s did a wrong version of interval training, many of them did anaerobic intervals (most of the short type) all year round 3-4 if not 5 times per week and the rest of the training was just 20-30min aerobic runs mostly done on the days that they didn´t run intervals. What that results ? It results in low mileage and low percent of aerobic training.

Therefore, what was wrong on the runners from the 50s and 60s was not miss intervals during some year period, or as Lydiard does only do anaerobic intervals (the Lydiard anaerobic phase) after one season period with just aerobic (the famous aerobic first) followed by Lydiard hill phase. Basically what was wrong in that distance runners from past 50s-60s was that they miss the needed aerobic mileage volume, and eventually reduce the intensity/pace of the intervals during the build up phase, BUT NOT EXCLUDED intervals.

Modern effective training shall include “Intervals” done all year round and (Yes !) in agreement with Lydiard aerobic training through mileage runs it´s very important. – Intervals it´s not correct, intervals here means just the format of runs and rest kind of training opposed to continuous runs. Intermittent training it´s what is correct because intermittent training shall be done all year round but might include what we mean by aerobic training and by anaerobic as well AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST MIGHT INCLUDE SPECIFIC RESISTANCE INTERVALS

There you have the right direction of the “modern” training, the one Lydiard did refuse and actually only the Lydiard revisionist does accept and that Lydiard didn´t accept never. It´s not modern because it´s new, but because it´s more correct and in agreement with actual training need.

Finally, of course that “aerobic first/the miss of intervals during that phase(intermittent training really) might be an option, might be an alternative depending of training individualization, but can´t be training principle, can´t be training concept.

I know that Northern Star pamphlet is about high school athletes, But it was him that did post expand and move the debate to a large Lydiard training umbrella. And I guess that Murray Halberg was not a high school boy what you wanted to mean by his training under Lydiard.

The more I think that Lydiard training is not bad for high school runners. I´ve said that and I might repeat. Am I Lydiard by say so, do I agree with Lydiard fundaments (except the aerobic mileage) or my training is Lydiard by say so. No I don´t, no it doesn´t.

If Lydiard watched something wrong in the training of Americans, and despite that to me his comment in the “New England Runner” makes me doubt that he knows what´s aerobic and anaerobic intervals precisely, but it´s not the main point. The main point it´s that the American version of intervals (or every other) that Lydiard knew and watch it´s not the correct version.

This is the main problem. Lydiard did EXTRAPOLATE from “wrong intervals done probably”, from wrong interval versions from runners that couldn´t progress with such poor interval done that intervals shalln´t be done year round, or shalln´t be effective while short-fast intervals, and that is not true, that is not right, that was just right for a limited universe of runners, probably the ones that were mediocre runners that try to emulate the training of the top world class runners. This is what is wrong in the Lydiard analysis, to repeat to the exhaustion that is wrong do “fast” (read anaerobic and aerobic) intervals year round, Lydfiard didn´t change his mind, and the modern gurus of the Lydiardism aos didn´t. Just read the books, the pamphlets, the site contain, and you will realize that they still agree with aerobic first. On this thread Northern Star repeats the same idea, that correct Lydiard training requires a introductory phase without intervals

Are you talking about Lydiard for high school boys or you are expand the subject to the big umbrella of Lydiard training? The say it´s me that move the issue to a large issue.

As we actually know ther´s neither pre-defined date or number of days per week, or volume or intensity or aerobic or anaerobic pre-defined to run intervals. Basically it depends of several variants: background training, the seasonal(moment) shape condition of the athlete, the distance event and training individualization required. It´s the coach that possess the information of each individual runner profile that might define that interval variants. From what shalln´t is done “by feeling” as Lydiard prescribes most of the intermittent training.

Herpetologist wrote:

Isn't the idea behind these pamphlets to summarize the coach's philosophy? If so, why is Antonio on here ranting about how wrong Lydiard was? It doesn't matter!

Because he wants to use LetsRun, like Renato has done, in order to make hiself more well known in the lower level running world in the hopes of getting speaking engagements and other money making opportunities and to stroke his ego.

Largely his arguements are based on symantics (he uses a different terminology thn Lydiard) and the fact that he has the benefit of 30+ yrs of more recent scientific data.

Why he takes so much time to post and tear down the works of a guy who has done so much for the sport sorta sad. Antonio please start your own thread and explain to us your philosophy rather than post contrary things on a thread about someone else's philosophy.

I just developed a headache reading Cabral's most recent offerings so i won't bother again.

If any chool age or university level people reading then you have two main choices if you want to train.

1. follow the modern training method that Renato Canova seems to be able to explain well. So if you cant sift through all that information and you are in a big rush, this is for you.

2. follow Lydiard's approach. This appears on the surface to be less precise than the other method, however once you get into the process it all becomes clear.

A. in order to understand modern training all you need to do is sit down and study it until you understand it. Then apply. You will be able to get help from a few people on these boards and there are plenty of online sources to study. If you choose to find a coach instead, then go for the one who doesn't seem like a maniac in any way. You want a mature, balanced person as a coach.

B. in order to understand what Lydiard discovered you will have to begin training and watch out for the things he mentions in his writings. If you want to do it properly then the best bet is to go online and find the Lydiard online training. I have nothing to do with it, it's just an opinion.

*If you start asking questions in here you will probably find Cabral comes along and starts to trash Lydiard just like he did in this thread (and 20 other threads if you want to do a search). Fair warning.

Sorry Northern Star. Having now read your linked article i would say read it is a worthy place to start.

If Lydiard training, or Renato whatever would be clear as you say, there

weren´t so many posts with questions and doubts what it, and how might be done more.

You see. After more than 50 years after Lydiard training it starts to be built, thousand of pages with Lydiard training, sites, online training, thousand of runners doing it, people thinks that it´s the occasion to write paphlets and books about Lydiard training.

It´s strange. If Lydiard training would be easy to understand there would be not need of this "Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners" among other pamphlets. Wouldn´t be questions that HRE answers,etc etc.

Some people will follow your training on line suggest or Lydiard training business offer.

Simply this is not one Forum for training advice or build schedules. At least

it´s not my point, to bring training advice to this forum, to this or other this forum thread.

On this Forum my main target and people´s main target it´s training debate among experts and about several coach issues, not just Lydiard, what you pretend to suggest. Well, some like you catch in anonymity aren´t distant from the personal comment as you know me well, and some rubbish posts about me instead of keep the debate on the methodology track debate.

The fact that the reason for what you name "headhache" to Cabral debate,

it´s not because you can´t stand my posts it´s because you aren´t at level to understand what i write.

Modern training it´s very easy to define, out of all complexity. It´s very easy.

We need to focus on doing every kind of training variant, from the slow pace aerobic to the harder and faster anaerobic training. All year round and we

can´t refuse any kind of pace training, any kind of volume training. All depends os the use of the total panoplia of condiments/paces in an organized manner, depending of each individual single runner. This is modern training.

Lydiard training is the opposite. Lydiard is training discrimination in each and every phase of the process. Lydiard is do just this on this phase, don´t do that on this phase of periodisation.

Antonio,

Thanks for the last two replies -- they are among your better ones. I don't really have anything more to say (that hasn't been said already), so I'll keep this reply short.

Of course there are wrong ways to do intervals, and not doing them at all is better than doing them wrong.

I agree with you that a Lydiard approach in high school (scaled down) is a great approach for aerobic development (as may many other approaches). Here "aerobic first" would be most important.

I can accept too that elite runners, who progress from development to maintenance, may have to be a little more sophisticated in finding which kinds of training work for them, and adapt their training to their new level and needs (and other constraints such as schedules).

ACmilan wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:Facts are Facts. EVERY DECADE YOU WANT TO ANALYZE; EVERY HISTORIC PERIOD FROM DISTANCE EVENTS from 800m to the marathon - from the world best you will get less than 5% of runners missing interval training during the introductory phase, most of them do intervals, all year round.

You are making a very simple mistake with this paragraph. You need to separate two different groups if you are going to analyse things this way. The first group is the only group you think exist, the double periodisers. They attempt to peak twice in a given year. The other group are the single periodisers. They onviously need to peak only once in the year. I challenge you to find a single periodiser who does your anaerobic intervals all year. A simple challenge for you Mr Cabral

The only idea that i want to comment.

If training the Lydiard method a single season of periodisation that´s a annual long period of training it requires “aerobic first/miss of intervals” why the hell by what magic or training principle a double periodisatiion wouldn´t require ?

Or say it another way. One long period of training it´s so long that in the Lydiard method instead of introduce intervals as soon as possible in the season process, we might take an introductory period of training with aerobic training mainly, but double season periodisation as the interval training needs to be introduced earlier in each one of each one of double periods, then according you in double periodisation we got one different scenario where ther´s no need of improve the aerobic condition and no need of aerobic first that excludes intervals ?

Illogic what you say.

About training, not about your portuguese friends or whatsoever, don´t try to confine me to absurd Lydiard training terminology or Lydiard physiology concepts. Training terminology is universal – despite each language and each culture got his own words and expressions to the same physiology signify. Therefore I refuse to accept Lydiard terminology as vague as “fast intervals” aerobic or anaerobic relate to ph, and much more of diverse Lydiard expressions and concepts that are imprecise or inappropriate to define with accuracy what´s the physical stimuli or expressions and concepts that don´t fit in main distance training terminology worldwide accepted.

Thanks for replying to my question.I would like to respond to this reply first.

Antonio Cabral wrote:The only idea that i want to comment.

It would have been preferable to respond to the challenge but this is better than nothing.

If training the Lydiard method a single season of periodisation that´s a annual long period of training it requires “aerobic first/miss of intervals” why the hell by what magic or training principle a double periodisatiion wouldn´t require ?

Good question but it doesn't really apply to what i said due to a miscommunication.

A Lydiard double-periodised year would simply have a shortened preparation phase. The other phases would be identical. I am assuming this of course as i can't ask him right now and haven't asked anyone else. So if you have 26 weeks and 12-16 of these are for the peaking process, then you have 10-14 weeks to prepare. If you have a 52 week year with the 12-16 weeks peaking, then you have a lot longer to prepare - 36-40 weeks.

My question was more wondering if you could find evidence of Elite athletes who, whilst doing a single periodised year, did intervals for all 52 weeks (or lets say 48 weeks to give some leeway for time off).

Are there any such examples?

Or say it another way. One long period of training it´s so long that in the Lydiard method instead of introduce intervals as soon as possible in the season process, we might take an introductory period of training with aerobic training mainly, but double season periodisation as the interval training needs to be introduced earlier in each one of each one of double periods, then according you in double periodisation we got one different scenario where ther´s no need of improve the aerobic condition and no need of aerobic first that excludes intervals ?

Illogic what you say.[/quote]

About training, not about your portuguese friends or whatsoever, don´t try to confine me to absurd Lydiard training terminology or Lydiard physiology concepts. Training terminology is universal – despite each language and each culture got his own words and expressions to the same physiology signify. Therefore I refuse to accept Lydiard terminology as vague as “fast intervals” aerobic or anaerobic relate to ph, and much more of diverse Lydiard expressions and concepts that are imprecise or inappropriate to define with accuracy what´s the physical stimuli or expressions and concepts that don´t fit in main distance training terminology worldwide accepted.[/quote]

Let´s check out , not the present but the all time best men 5000m performances.

25 runners

1. 12:37.35 Kenenisa Bekele (ETH) Hengelo May 31, 2004

2. 12:39.36 Haile Gebrselassie (ETH) Helsinki June 13, 1998

3. 12:39.74 Daniel Komen (KEN) Brussels August 22, 1997

4. 12:46.53 Eliud Kipchoge (KEN) Rome July 2, 2004

5. 12:47.04 Sileshi Sihine (ETH) Rome July 2, 2004

6. 12:48.66 Isaac Songok (KEN) Zürich August 18, 2006

7. 12:48.81 Stephen Cherono (KEN) Ostrava June 12, 2003

8. 12:49.28 Brahim Lahlafi (MAR) Brussels August 25, 2000

9. 12:49.71 Mohammed Mourhit (BEL) Brussels August 25, 2000

10. 12:49.87 Paul Tergat (KEN) Zürich August 13, 1997

11. 12:50.24 Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) Ostrava June 12, 2003

12. 12:50.25 Abderrahim Goumri (MAR) Brussels August 26, 2005

13. 12:50.55 Moses Ndiema Masai (KEN) Berlin June 1, 2008

14. 12:50.72 Moses Ndiema Kipsiro (UGA) Brussels September 14, 2007

15. 12:50.80 Salah Hissou (MAR) Rome June 5, 1996

16. 12:50.86 Ali Saïdi-Sief (ALG) Rome June 30, 2000

17. 12:51.00 Joseph Ebuya (KEN) Brussels September 14, 2007

18. 12:51.45 Vincent Kiprop Chepkok (KEN) Doha May 14, 2010

19. 12:51.95 Thomas Pkemei Longosiwa (KEN) Brussels September 14, 2007

20. 12:52.33 Sammy Kipketer (KEN) Oslo June 27, 2003

21. 12:52.40 Edwin Cheruiyot Soi (KEN) Paris July 8, 2006

22. 12:52.45 Tariku Bekele (ETH) Berlin June 1, 2008

23. 12:52.80 Gebregziabher Gebremariam (ETH) Rome July 8, 2005

24. 12:52.99 Abraham Chebii (KEN) Oslo June 27, 2003

25. 12:53.11 Mo Farah (GBR) Fontvieille July 22, 2011[3]

From this runners what was been the one, or the one(s) that didn´t intermittent training by any kind training format, and done year round ?

You might do the same exercise for every distance event from 800m to the marathon and you will see that aerobic first was been used only for one very little percent of runners, and those that did use it, past and recently , didn´t show no more training effectiveness from the performances that they did relate to the others that did use intervals intermittent training year round.

As I said earlier, aerobic first as a training principle is a stupidity. But might be done as application when the runner background or in the training context that the need of training individualization would justify. Aerobic first as distance training approach shall be considered training exception and not training norm or training rule or rich training concept.

What we need is to correct and replace the wrong interval training application in that training of quality (intervals/intermittency), - too much intervals weekly frequency, too much intervals done in non-effective pace, too much intervals done by feeling (out of rational control), quit out of wrong recovery length, wrong interval distance sets, etc, and include the rich and effective kind of intervals, but not quit it or give up for one long season period/phase, and not then do intervals just during one very short season period with “fast”/anaerobic interval training basically as Lydiard prescribes.

Then, to the rich interval training done year round, it´s NECESSARY include in runners training digest volume mileage(aerobics condition mainly). Aerobic volume is the rich part of Lydiard method, and at for the moment I don´t want to discuss in what pace and how many miles shall be done. But please, never say that does mileage or prescribes mileage training is considered Lydiard training. Might be or might not, depending o what´s the training methodology principles that he follows.

ACmilan wrote:

Good question but it doesn't really apply to what i said due to a miscommunication.

A Lydiard double-periodised year would simply have a shortened preparation phase. The other phases would be identical. I am assuming this of course as i can't ask him right now and haven't asked anyone else. So if you have 26 weeks and 12-16 of these are for the peaking process, then you have 10-14 weeks to prepare. If you have a 52 week year with the 12-16 weeks peaking, then you have a lot longer to prepare - 36-40 weeks.

My question was more wondering if you could find evidence of Elite athletes who, whilst doing a single periodised year, did intervals for all 52 weeks (or lets say 48 weeks to give some leeway for time off).

Are there any such examples?

Sometimes i try to guess in what part of the world do you live, that you show some ignorance about the actual running scenario, you show total lack of information. I imagine that you just know Lydiard runners mostly. You don´t live in another planet or the moon and I guess that you, as most Lydiardists, with that questions as this one of doule periodisation, and their own conclusions, they are ETs. They just knew Lydiard training and Lydiard runners. Excuse me, actually some of them they know Renato Canova, despite they don´t trust that what he says and does it´s right, that things are as they are. Finally some of them hear my name or read my posts, and the conclusion is that I got an obsession against Lydiard, I´m egocentric, paranoid, compulsive, I want make money from post on LRC etc.

For example, in my country that you name it, or spain.

Everybody, not everybody but the huge majority of the distance runners actually does/did double or triple periodisation and no problem, intervals all year round and they don´t see to get a problem with that.

For example the best of long-distance runners (5000m-1000m to road-10k, cross and HM and Marathon specialists) that are national or international level, they peak 2 to 3 times in one season. They peak for the European Cross in November, They peak another time for national world cross or spring marathon (Mars or April) and they peak another time for the summer track season, national or international competitions. However they do intervals of every kind all year round. In fact and to be factual it´s not 52 weeks total of interval training, Might be they do miss a few one weeks, in the transitory rest period (end of the summer start of autumn) or for a week or 2 sparsely during the season.

I don´t remember have seen Rui Silva, Carlos Lopes, Rosa Mota, Fernanda Ribeiro, Manuela Machado, etc etc - miss intervals, just when they get injured, but then all of them peak 2-3 times a year, and i didn´t see them doing the aerobic first. they just combine mileage (quality) and some intervals (quality) all year round.

Carlos Lopes, the famous one portuguese i guess. He did win the world cross country title, and on summer the marathon olympics. Double periodisation. He didn´t miss the intervals, only by injury. He didn´t no aerobic first in his entire career.

Another example of longevity. Domingos Castro. Present in 11 world cross countries in a row. he didn´t miss a week of intervals. See, great longevity career, did most of his Pbs at 34-35 years old. Conclusion, intervals all year round doesn´t enable longevity or sustain performance progress.

At the world top level I don´t need to go further. Just see what the training of Tadesse. Just see what was been the training of Paula Radcliffe. Double periodisation but then intervals all year round. I could go on and on but you might do that same exercise.

The idea that double periodisation that shorten the introductory phase (each one if it´s double or triple periodisation) and also the other late phases either it´s true, but IF THE NEED OF AEROBIC FIRST WAS A RICH TRAINING PRINCIPLE, that multiple periodisation is not enough to change the training principle. The problem is that is not true.

Of course that doesn´t able a single long period of aerobics as was done by the Lydiard runners on then past. But if the aerobic first is necessary, the more necessary would be still , even done for 2-3 short periods by limit of occasion to do it in double-triple periodisation. Or the Lydiard principles of the need of aerobic first and aerobic unlimited isn´t valid for 2-3 season peaks ? That is illogical. The reason that the actual runners don´t do it, it´s mainly because it´s unnecessary, because we can combine quantity and quality training, aerobic and anaerobic at very moment of the season, This both, aerobic and anaerobic (mileage and intervals) done as crescendo/crescendum along the season, or each one from the multiple perisodisation is what is the truth and the right principle of modern training. No problem at all that you mix up both – no danger of not get the same or better aerobic condition by doing both in every phase of the process. The facts, the performances, the statistics shows that i´m right.

You need to learn one thing once for all. From the poor runner condition to the rich aerobic condition and the rich aerobic and anaerobic maximize, from the poor AT and run economy to the maximize of one runner best, everything of every kind of training stimulus might train together side-by-side, day-by-day, week-by-week, cycle-by-cycle, phase-by-phase, season-by-season /single or multiple peridisation). You reserve days and training unities or one kind of stimulus and the next day(s) for the others, what changes from one day, one week, one phase etc, is just the percent of each one stimulus, That might be done this way as shall be done this way for allow performance maximization.

I have a half prepared answer to your third most recent post but it got stuck ...

Antonio Cabral wrote:

From this runners what was been the one, or the one(s) that didn´t intermittent training by any kind training format, and done year round ?

I don't know. Did you analyse them so as to present one as supporting your opinion? I really can't do the groundwork research on your own argument can i?

Can i just say something of a general trend to this quite big issue. Actually just check out fable by Aesop 'The Ant and the grasshopper'. I think this underlies Lydiardism as clearly as anything else.

That doesn't really explain the detail you wish to see in an answer so let me try to apply the general rule outlined in that fable, to be prepared ahead. The Greeks have Prometheus as an example of the same thing, his name means forethought.

Getting into what you've said, i agree with you on the importance of defining what is the correct application of interval training. So how about we analyse this specific idea? I will go first. For starters the only thing that can be incorrect is the application. The sessions aren't wrong in themselves.

For me there are three variables - the repetition, the interval between them (ie the recovery) and the intensity they are run at. My position is pretty simple, maybe too simple. You can be the judge.

I only ever control two of the three variables leaving the final one to be determined by the first two. It is like an equation. A x B = C.

The most common option option with 'anaerobic' 'intervals' is to control the repetitions and the intervals whilst allowing the intensity to work itself out. This is very important as it allows for athlete individualisation on a session by session basis. (It also encourages the athlete to fine tune themselves as they are an inherent part of the decision making process, so they can't just run mindlessly, they have to actually pay attention to what they are doing)

Now you might say that this is too vague and may not train the athlete for the race pace they will need. I feel the opposite.

Let's take 5x300/4mins as one of my all time favorite 800m interval sessions. You can see there is only mention of the repetition and interval variables. If we look at a series of say 6 of these sessions run over 6 weeks we can see we are both right. You are right the sessions leads to some vagueness and i am right in saying the sessions lead to a result that is more precise and more natural than your method of controlling all three variables.

week 1 - 40.7, 39.7, 39.1, 39.8, 41.5 (13.25/100m)

Variance is 2.4 seconds across those 5 reps which equates to about 18 meters. You are correct this is not acceptable. Lets jump forward 6 weeks.

week 6 - 38.2, 38.0, 37.9, 38.2, 37.9 (12.81/100m)

Variance of 0.3 which is 2.33 meters. A very different story.

Can this precision be met by the modern approach of controlling all three variables? Possibly. However, i doubt that precision can be met under the same total exhaustion conditions this particular session is run under. Many athletes can learn to hit times within meters of one another, pacemakers are gifted at this. But put the same athlete under fatigue and see if his perceptions are as clear.

See a coach can only guess so far. No matter how guru the coach is their capacity to predict the future is very limited. So there is an acceptance that this is the a fact and training adjusts to allow for it. Simple leaving one of the variables to remain floating is one of the easiest ways to achieve this. Then all that remains is the athletes self honesty, and the coaches ability to guide it.

That's my approach to anaerobic intervals.

ACmilan wrote:

Can i just say something of a general trend to this quite big issue. Actually just check out fable by Aesop 'The Ant and the grasshopper'. I think this underlies Lydiardism as clearly as anything else.

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml

I knew this fable but from another recent author the French author, Jean de La Fontaine.

The problem here is that if we relate this story to Lydiard periodisation we got another problem of discrepancy.

First the long distance periodisation, doesn´t follow no more the annual season cycle. You need to peak on every season probably, what requires from the runner an intro season out of the seasonal process of the nature. As you say, today´s it looks more as typical multiple season periodisation. In fact, it´s curious because long ago, the british coach Frank Horwill , is the first coach (to my knowledge) that quote this fact. He says that what´s inoperative season periodisation in the Lydiard method , is due to the season cycle of periodisation and the training required up to the runner progress up to the best shape condition in at the light of science biology and physiology training need is disconnect with the nature season cycles of biology.

Second the Lydiard training is the opposite of is said in “The Ant and the grasshopper”. We need to work and collect food and not use it too much and keep/collect and don´t spoil it during the summer climax to profit and have have it at our disposal during the winter. Or, the Lydiard training proposal it´s the opposite. We need to work hard during the winter/marathon block when we have no competition and be out of flesh blood of the anaerobic training during the winter – but just collect miles mostly in this winter period, to profite from it during the summer competitive season. The it´s the opposite “The Ant and the grasshopper” proposal and the Lydiard one. But I understand your analogy.

About your way to run anaerobic intervals from 800m in this case, no doubts or negative comments. Thanks to share your training approach to this kind of intervals.

Ok, so now you gotta define anaerobic threshold, and reading through other stufff you have linked to, you know that AnT is really undefinable. We can't use lactate steady state to define AnT because it is too variable, we could use the ventilatory threshold as the marker, but then again, it depends on how much glycogen we are using, so we won't get reliable figures for such a threshold because the pace will vary considerably, such that; when we are fully carbo loaded, and not warmed up sufficiently, we can get out of breath at a relatively slow pace, and when we our glycogen stores are quite low, but we have had a good warm up we can run very fast without getting out of breath.

Also, as Noakes describes in his Lore of Running volume 4 how there is no such thing as "going anaerobic" as well as a summary of lactate metabolism. Added to this is the fact that fast oxidative fibers can also utilize fats as fuel and we can see that that using scientific terminology to define training is pretentious nonsense. What we have to do instead is to learn/instruct how to run fast and long by feel.

We are mostly training our bodies to use glycogen and fats as to run fast but as efficiently as possible for as long as possible, whilst avoiding acidosis. To add a training phaose which deliberately encourages acidosis such as in the Lydiard 'anaerobic' phase is just silly. I agree with Daniels, that this type of training gives us a good workout for the respiratory muscles, but that is about all it is useful for.

Northern Star:

Good booklet. You say that Carbohydrates are the primary source of energy for a runner. I thought fat was primary for a distance runner.

... so the previous post was about anaerobic intervals and now we are moving onto preparation versus competition. We will have to get to aerobic intervals at some point too. And there are these contentious issues of aerobic first and aerobic unlimited which aren't resolved by any means in either direction yet.

It is hard to know what is and isn't truly Aesop as he never wrote anything down, or at least nothing has survived that he wrote down, but experts agree the Ant/grasshopper was his originally. I think there have been a lot of adaptions since and your French man is one of the famous ones that recreated a few. ANTZ the Pixar movie a few years ago is following that tradition.

If we agree that this annual and seasonal approach to training is the natural one then already we lose one point of argument between us. This is a good start.

I didn't really understand the part about Horwill forgive me, but i think i get the point. I can't disagree with you, the modern demands on the athlete are such that making money often becomes the priority. Gone are the days (so some say) where you can make it whilst holding down a full time job. I still don't think anyone would have beaten Elliot up to this present day in that 1960 final, and he had a full time job whilst he trained. So i believe it is possible. However, the lure of the big money is pretty hard to resist and one would have to live quite ascetically to fit maximal training and a full time job into a week.

I've been trying to say this for a few posts, so here goes. The reason i asked you about doing some comparison between athletes doing single v double periodised years is because both options exist already. In fact 98% (ie most) of the time you see either a single or a double periodised year, with the rare triple being attempted rarely.

So if the options are either a single or a double where are these missing singles? I can see, like yourself, that most of the top end performers are doing doubles, so what is the story?

It appears complicated but i'm sure it's not. Maybe some other brains can help here. For one you see athletes still in their development period, before making world class, doing singles. And once they make a team or gain the ability to race on the circuit their training periodisation becomes doubled (or should it be halved). But this is confused by the fact a lot of the educational systems in the Northern Hemisphere focus their students on competing more than one season a year. It is also confused by athletes, thinking they need to compete in Europe in order to learn how to compete in Europe, and whilst this works in an inspirational way, it means there is a year lost putting in the deep groundwork only a single period can provide.

Now i hope i don't anger you by bringing up Lydiard yet again. To be honest it is almost impossible to avoid, as so many things connected to him are simply the best example possible to be found. Viren is one of these examples. For me he exemplifies the ant to the fullest extreme. He was an ant who was planning 4 Winters ahead to the Great Winter. To lay a single cycle that is 4 years long is truly taking the 'Ant' preparation to it's extreme. Probably the Finnish hyper-welfare state at the time enabled him to train for four years fully supported, but even so this is a mental effort of Herculean proportions. Come Olympic time he was never challenged. He could have run 30 seconds faster had a Bekele suddenly time-warped onto the track (no i don't think he could have beaten Bekele).

If we take what i just said to be true, then the lesson is the deeper/broader the base the higher the peak. Since this is found in the natural world in trees and mountains and also of the manmade world in pyramids and any structure that has a foundation, i am highly swayed by this way of thinking.

So we have two competing needs here, to earn a living or to attempt something special. The problem is the former seems to be precluding the latter in way too may cases.

Timing wise it is in reverse but apart from that the lesson is quite precisely true. Maybe we can look at it like this. An athlete prepares in Winter so that in Summer he can reap the results of his preparation, which then enables him to prepare for another year and so keep the cycle going.

cheers :) I thought you might appreciate some statistics, i don't know what Lydiard would say about it though.

jonathon wrote:

Northern Star:

Good booklet. You say that Carbohydrates are the primary source of energy for a runner. I thought fat was primary for a distance runner.

It's both.

jonathon wrote:

Northern Star:

Good booklet. You say that Carbohydrates are the primary source of energy for a runner. I thought fat was primary for a distance runner.

Technically, yes, you and "actually" are correct—fats DO play a significant role in fueling runners, especially at slower paces. From my somewhat limited understanding of fat breakdown, they enter the cycle a few steps down the line and are burned up much like sugar (glucose/glycogen). But the role of fat metabolism on distance training doesn't have much relevance for any event shorter than the marathon, so I left that out. And fat provides only a small portion of the energy you use when you are running a 5k or a 10k.

***

In other news, I had the pleasure yesterday of talking about my booklet, Lydiard training, and several other topics over coffee with Nobby Hashizume, co-founder of the Arthur Lydiard Foundation. In retrospect, a better title for this thread might have been "New booklet on Lydiard-inspired/rooted training," since the title of this thread implies that Basic Training Principles is a "straight Lydiard program," which of course it is not! Nobby rightly pointed out that I skimmed over the "hill phase" and didn't bother to distinguish between the "coordination phase" as a precursor to the peaking/tapering/championship phase. I do feel obliged to clarify that I didn't intend this book to be "Lydiard training for high schoolers," as I do think that the entire Lydiard model is a bit dated and I have my own disagreements with a strict Lydiard model (see below). But more importantly, Basic Training Principles is really just a booklet about the importance of aerobic development before race-specific training. The reason that there's hardly anything about planning interval workouts is because, if you are a high school or college runner, your coach is doing that for you anyways!

I should also clarify that I am not a "strict Lydiardist," whatever that would mean. Antonio is correct when he says that Lydiard would strongly disapprove of doing a workout like 16x200 during the "base" phase, even if it was only once every few weeks. Lydiard also abhorred weight training. I think both of these things are good ideas, especially for a middle distance runner. And there are many other points of "classic Lydiard training" that I personally disagree with. However, I am still very firmly in the camp that, at least for high school/college-aged runners, more strict periodization and EMPHASIS on aerobic development for several months before race-specific training is the best way to train. I think that will be an irreconcilable difference between the two groups of posters on this thread.