Pantman:
What I know about things Arthur would have said about kids running would be: whatever they feel happy about, let them do it. And don't EVER force them to do anything they don't feel comfortable doing. He believed young kids can run a lot as long as the effort is comfortable to them. I believe he had quite a few young kids running famous Waitakere 22-mile course (if I remember it correctly, as young as 12 years old) at their will comfortably. I think there's a picture of his son, Gary, running Waitak in a pouring rain at the age of 15 or 16. He had coached a handful of young girls (15, 16 and 17) running 90 minutes to 2-hour regularly. I have several people, Gary included, whom I intend to talk to in depth how Arthur went about helping out young kids with their running. Heather Charmichael is a beautiful dark-haired lady (now) who, at the age of 18, Arthur brought to Peachtree road race. She beat, among others, Patti Catalano and Mary Shea and set the course record and nobody knew where the hell she came from. Heather was one of the girls Arthur coached as a high school runner (I know it's a few years older from the original topic). Another one of the group was Christy McMiken who represented NZ in 10000m at Seoul Olympics (missed the final by a few steps). Another one is Glynis Quick who battled with Nanae Sasaki (coached by the late Kiyoshi Nakamura) at Nagoya marathon in the early 80s. Interestingly, she's married to Robert Vaughan who coached Francie Larrue Smith.
In Arthur's opinion, going for an aerobic running at comfortable effort, up to 2-hours or even longer, for young kids as young as 12 or so, is no problem. He would most probably, with great caution, say even as eary as 10. I say "with caution" because, with a sensitive issue like this, he would not simply guess. Just as he was cautious about jogging group, though he was confident it would work, he was just as cautious about coaching those young ladies. Of course, after a few trials, his confidence took over.
He, on the other hand, had a huge problem with ANAEROBIC training with youngsters--here I'd say almost as old as 17 or 18. I capitalized ANAEROBIC because there's huge difference between simply running fast and taking a break, in other words, "interval" training and anaerobic training. I remember people looked puzzled when Bill Bowerman said that simple interval concept works well with older people. What he meant was jogging betwen telephone poles and taking a walk break between the next poles--that's interval training. But that's NOTHING like anaerobic training. In Arthur's eyes, anaerobic training means creating buffer against oxygen debt, in other words, resistance against lowering of pH level in the body. You can sprint and take a break and sprint and take a break and never creat too much lactic acid to affect your central nervous system because the burst of sprint is so short that it won't create lactic acid, in today's fancy words, it's alactate. On the other side of the coin, you can have a kid run 500m all out ONCE and his/her system will be full of lactic acid. It's not interval form at all but could be very dangerous for youngsters. This is why Arthur didn't like to see track events shorter than 800m being the main event for young kids--someone who's not fast for a sprinter and more of an endurance type, yet, the longest event is 400m so consequently they'd be forced to run 400m. Coming off the final turn, their parents yelling at them while their legs are full of lactic acid, they would push even more because of that added psychological pressure. On the other hand, he said, distances beyond 800m, kids will pace themselves and, in a way, "cheat" to run slower at some parts because they know they can't run the entire distance full-out; therefore, not as dangerous. Cross country, he would say, would be even better because parents and coaches are out of sight!
I personally feel clacifying soccer, even basketball which I think is more quick turn around event, as "interval training" and, if Arthur said soccer is good for young kids and, therefore, Arthur would encourage young kids to do interval training is a wrong interpretation. Yes, kids love soccer and basketball and they play hard. They consist of hard quick bursts followed by recoveries; but the nature of "exercise" is completely different from structured "interval training". Arthur would have NEVER approved of giving structured interval training to young kids of 10, 11 or 12 years old. Yes, we see kids running around HARD all over the place in a game of soccer or basketball. But they know when they are pushing too much; when things get tough, they'll slow down or walk. It is more of a fartlek workout; in which you could listen to your own reaction and determine the effort accordingly. Whereas, at least my understanding of intervals, particularly structured interval training, it would most likely a form of something like 8X200m. Kids migh run the first 200m and, after 120m, they are done, but it's just getting into the final straight where their coach might be staring at them with a stopwatch in hand... What would they do? They would keep pushing to the finish line and, more often than not, they would jog quickly, not thinking too much about "recovery" to the start of the next one. They would most likely be cooked after the first 3 but because it's written 8X, they would push to comply. Arthur absolutely "hated" a program like that.
His approach to kids running would be summed up with this one line: "Let them play at and with athletics." Anything less than "fun" and "play" for kids running, that's not good enough.
Okay, sorry, folks; I'm writing a book here. About the argument with Dr. Snell, Arthur said that kids' VO2Max relative to their body weight is higher than that of adults. What he meant is that, with a very simple terms (by using completely bogus numbers), if you weigh 160lbs with 6 liters; this kid may weigh, say, 80lbs with VO2Max of 4 liters. The kids weight may be a half of that of adult, VO2Max might be a bit higher than a half (of that of adult); therefore, when you devide that by weight, oxygen comsumption per kilogram of body weight is higher for the kid. You see some little kid actually running really really really well and sometimes would PO you by passing you (!). It happens a lot with young girls; but as they go through a growth spurt and gain weight overnight, they lose that ability completely. It is because the ratio of oxygen comsumption PER KILOGRAM OF BODY WEIGHT decreases dramatically overnight. Now Peter claims that if the kids' VO2Max is higher than that of adult, it would have to be reflected in the actual performances, in other words, they would have to be able to run the mile as fast as adults. of course, that is a bit of an exggerated exapmle because, as we know, it involves more than just oxygen consumpton--muscle strenghs, sense of pacing, tactics and all. Peter knows that because he's done VO2Max on himself at various age and found out that his VO2Max didn't really decrease that much when he was high twenties, 30-year-old and beyond but, he said, his mile times at those points were NOWHERE near what he ran at his prime. But basically it shoud reflect in the actual performances. Naturally, we would like to use this line in the Arthur Lydiard Training Video Series but we need to be clear of the "correct" statement. We don't want to put an incorrect statement "just because he said so."
Okay, enough of that. I'm going back to watching "That 70s Show"!