Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Explain to him, or to everyone else?First, I don't recommend muscle biopsies. I would direct everyone to the Hadd and Cabral "2 runners" thread where Hadd describes how to tell FT guys from ST guys. I can not do better than Hadd. But generally people know -- if you like tempos, you're probably ST. If you like speedwork, your probably FT.I think something HRE is asking with the last few questions, is that he sees you can still address many of these things in a Lydiard framework. I don't see Lydiard as rigid as critics would have you believe. Feedback from the athlete is important in all the phases. You can reduce the volume if it's detrimental. You can reduce the long run, if it's damaging. You can modify the training in the phases to accomodate the strengths of FT runners or ST runners, and customize the training for the athlete and his distance. You can change the periods if it doesn't fit your schedule. You can even eliminate phases, and just start racing. To count as Lydiard, just means looking at training as "aerobic" and "anaerobic", and combining them a certain way.Just because you look at training as "aerobic" and "anaerobic" doesn't necessarily mean that you neglect elements like "specificity", "training individualization", "exalting strengths". Admittedly though, sometimes little guidance is given (e.g. confusion about how to do intervals, and how to find the right paces), so that success with a "bad" coach might be hit and miss.Of course the general training was done by everyone the same way. I often wondered, even if it may not be optimal for everyone, if running as a team provided huge psychological advantages.I sometimes like analogies, so I'll propose this. Lydiard training is often illustrated like building a pyramid from the bottom up, one layer at a time, until you get to the peak. Maybe modern methods are more like building the pyramid from the inside out, and up. That is while building the bottom layer, you start building the higher layers before the bottom is finished.Then you can argue whether this change of structure, and different perspective on general, special, and specific training, allows you to get to the top quicker, or to build taller, skinnier pyramids.

khadaffi out of power wrote:

rekrunner

I guess that before we continued, i think you did read most of this board forum. Why don´t you try to clarify the HRE last doubt about the runner fiber type ?

Sometime ago, i remember to read about this issue, on that John Hadd thread how to detect the fiber type by empiric observation. Are you able to let us know how to determine the type 1 FT and the type 2 ST runner ?

rekrunner wrote:

I think I saw a presentation where Lydiard told the Japanese exactly that. They were doing to much "aerobic" work, and not enough "anaerobic" work.

I always got the impression, it wasn't the Lydiard adepts pushing the ideas of 100 mpw, but more that people reduce it to simple things like "100 mpw" and "long slow distance", leaving out other important elements.

Once i did open to the Lydiard site and on the top of the Lydiard training agenda says "100miles/marathon block" an says "this is Lydiard training". Did they remove this point ?

Thanks for the ST and FT teach. I see you are an expert.

Most of what you say i might agree. However i have no clue how Lydiard had done, i don´t know enough to confirm your observation.

However analogy by analogy, i prefer that Lydiard build the structure first and after finish the structure he builds the walls. But modern training builds the structure until the first or second stage stages and then builds the walls and finnaly puts the furniture on the first 1-2 stages and then continues, What´s the difference ? In the modern training the structure supports the wall, but the walls of the first two stages supports the next stage to be done, so and so. As soon as each low stage is done, it´s time to insert thr furniture. The analogy is with the training of course. In the modern training the structure is the aerobic training and the wall is the anaerobic and the furniture is the specific training. The structure and the walls are similar for every stage, but the furniture can be different for each stage and for every room of each stage.

Every new stage from there to the roof only needs to place the furniture stage by stage, not to carry the furniture for all the stages at the same time or during one short period. Analogy with different season periodisation when the specific training is more sparse but during a longer period. I don´t know where you live and what you know about high buildings with several stages. Often the high stage is closed or not finish yet but the low stages of the building are occupied either. Here you are. Lydiard linear training, versus non-linear modern training. Have you ever seen a modern car factory ? On the past they did like you say: they build the chassis and only when the chassis is ready they place the motor/engine. It´s the Ford Thin Lyzzy kind of production. But actually the are fast and efficient, and best fast veihicles, by build everything during the same period. It´s not literally but you understand. Fast and strong house building, fast and strong veihicle line of production prodution. Do you know how they build modern suspended bridges ? It´s build suspended on the air and only in the last moment is fixed on the soil. Lydiard is tge build of the bridge in the old style of engeneering.

One more analogy. On the past the child is teach to read and write. Letter by letter first, tehn each silabe and only after the child unites letters and grups of letter, silabes to learn how to read or to write one word. Actually, the modern teach system starts by the easier words to complex words and several words that is the sentence. See.

Thanks! Much appreciated.

I remember that thread and I think I brought up a similar point and while I think most of the ways they mentioned to detect various "types." But I wasn't convinced it was truly empirical precisely because your conclusions almost always come after you've made your observations and would almost necessarily be influenced by pre-existing information.

I just had a look at the LF website and don't see anything like "100miles/marathon block" anyplace. Maybe it's been removed.

I've been following this thread with some amusement. No one will agree on anything so it's kind of pointless!

But anyway, for my post...

I started running about 9 years ago. My first experiences with training ended up with hitting the track and having injury set backs. I decided that I wanted to get fast over distance (think 1/2 to marathon) and read everything I could. I tried different coaches and tried to understand their technique. What I found was that the majority of coaches out there always started a program without developing an aerobic base. Not only did the coaches do this, even the books by so called great coaches did this! It was always, "you should be running x number of miles to start this program".

Arthur Lydiard was the first to realize that developing an aerobic base is the first step in becoming competitive. This first step is training TO BE ABLE TO TRAIN FOR RACE SPECIFICITY. Most locally competitive runners could develop this only and perform well. Lydiard training took me to another level. But it was not the end all. I then found a coach that developed me even further. I can tell you work outs that I did but it wouldn't matter. I found it to be interval but not speed, think of the Hadd / Cabral thread. I got faster over distance but I just couldn't do it day in and day out. It wasn't a program that a working Joe like myself could maintain. The Lydiard program is.

What KOOP seems to be saying is in regards to the race specific phase. As Renato Canova has discussed in other threads, most top athletes have developed their aerobic bases to a very high point. He then gets very specific in raising that limit based on the individual, for a specific race, at a very technical level.

I think it is a disservice to the sport to say that Arthur Lydiard was not a great coach, and did not have a great method. The fact that these debates go on and on show that he did have some merit, his training is still incorporated all over the world.

But also we need to recognize that Lydiard's program is not the end all, and we should welcome changes in methodology, that bring improvement to our sport.

So, Kadhafi Out of Power, can you write a program that could take a sedentary individual and get them to run at a high level? Can you write a plan that would make some of these letsrun poster children champions?

[quote]Kadaffy duck wrote:

I've been following this thread with some amusement. No one will agree on anything so it's kind of pointless!

/quote]

We don't all have to agree for the discussion to have a point. The opposing viewpoints are what make the discussion interesting and valuable.

I will say that I'm almost 100% sure I know who "Khaddafi out of power" is and he's a smart man and a good coach, and certainly not a lunatic, as some have said.

As for Lydiard, I think he made some great contributions to training methodolgy, but of course there have been some advancements in training since his time. Just the same as Paavo Nurmi or Roger Bannister's training was the best for their time but is no longer standard training for top runners.

Kadaffy duck wrote:

So, Kadhafi Out of Power, can you write a program that could take a sedentary individual and get them to run at a high level? Can you write a plan that would make some of these letsrun poster children champions?

I don't think anyone can write a generic schedule that can take a sedentary indvidual and make them a champion.

To be a champion requires a very unique and unusual level of talent. 99.9999% of us could never become champions no matter how we train.

Talent is the main ingredient, training makes a relatively small difference. Gebreselassie or Bekele would be oustanding runners on almost any training program. The right training makes that small amount of difference that takes them from merely being excellent runners to being world champions.

...Uh....sorry Dan, but Lydiard's methods ARE used today, to great success.

I laugh at the little people with the little minds who suggest his method is dated. Only someone with a poor understanding says this inane, ignorant and foolish comment.

Lydiard's method is no more dated than the human body can be dated - human physiology has not changed in thousands of years or forever.

Understand the method then you can appreciate how broadly it is used today and how vast the effect has been across the world. In fact I would argue that it is used more today than it was back in the day.

You cannot define the method as simply a specific weekly schedule 'X' fit into a specific phase 'Y' in a 12 or 24 week cycle 'Z'. Each human is an experiment of one, you have to understand physiology (not in some overly scientific way necessarily) to appreciate how to apply it and you have to understand the art of coaching, communication and observation to apply it to individuals. So to nail the 'method' as incorrect would be accurate if you were a coach incorrectly applying the method and blaming the method or the man (Lydiard) when it is you, the failure who messed it up and for the most part it is not that complicated.

Kaddafi can argue this thread to another 20 pages or 200 pages. Doesn't sway my appreciation for the greatest coach ever who developed the greatest method ever. Yes he was both, a great coach and an innovator....people forget that....or whatever...

Anyone entertained by this thread can learn about the Lydiard method without the little minds interloping by visiting the Lydiard Foundation:

www.lydiardfoundation.org

or hiring Master Run Coach:

www.go2lydiard.com

or if you want to join the facebook group...fb: 'Arthur Lydiard' - there are some awesome minds at all three.

Enough with the BS.

And just to clarify, I am not suggesting you, Dan don't appreciate Lydiard or are a poor coach. I have no idea - just generally stating and the same with Kadaffi. I could have said anyone's name. His is just the most obvious in this thread, so I used it....

On the surface, Dan, your statement is not inline with what Lydiard said.

"Champions are everywhere, they just need to be trained up"

-Lydiard.

Out of 7 billion people, very very few - a miniscule amount really, run enough to know how fast they could be at any distance.

How could we possibly know what the human body is really capable of if thousands seriously run in a population at 7bill. Needle in a hay stack.

peter2 wrote:

Can someone with a 400 pb of 59 sec run sub 4? Impossible, whichever way you want to describe it - in theory or in practice.

so, you're the FOURTH retard to make this statement... do you not understand what "theoretical" means? THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, anyone with the ability to run sub-4 mile pace for ANY given distance could run a sub-4 mile, if they had the THEORETICAL endurance to never slow down... how can such a simple concept be so hard to understand?

I think he means this presentation, about the 4th slide, titled "What people say it is:"

http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/training/understandinglydiardmethod.aspx

The first bullet says "100 mile per week"

The last bullet agrees"it is all of the above"

I wonder what the rest of the presentation says, starting from the 6th slide, and the following 33 slides? I didn't see 100 miles per week in the detailed explanation of the method, or the closer look at marathon conditioning.

Wetcoast wrote:

On the surface, Dan, your statement is not inline with what Lydiard said.

"Champions are everywhere, they just need to be trained up"

-Lydiard.

Well, if Lydiard said it, then it must be true.

No wonder Khadaffi compares you guys to a cult.

Nothing against you or Lydiard, but I think that's a very naive statement. There's no way you or I could beat a Bekele or Geb or even our top Canadian runners simply by following a particular training schedule. If only it was that easy!

Champions are the ones who have an enormous amount of talent to begin with and then work very hard to develop it.

You're missing the point! Funny things happen to the muscles after an almost flat out 400, that won't allow the runner to continue at that pace - no matter how well developed his endurance is.So, if my 100 m pb is 14.8 "theoretically" I can run a sub 4 min mile? This is what you are saying. Theoretically, it can't be done. Not eventually, now?Based on what you're saying, we can run Usain Bolt can theoretically run a run a marathon in...whatever ... I can't be stuffed working it out.Over and out.

lol@tards.. wrote:

peter2 wrote:

Can someone with a 400 pb of 59 sec run sub 4? Impossible, whichever way you want to describe it - in theory or in practice.

so, you're the FOURTH retard to make this statement... do you not understand what "theoretical" means? THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, anyone with the ability to run sub-4 mile pace for ANY given distance could run a sub-4 mile, if they had the THEORETICAL endurance to never slow down... how can such a simple concept be so hard to understand?

So if you believe the first statement, why do you include a link for a generic online training program?

Enough with the BS indeed.

You have to read Lydiard's books to understand this better. Get "Run to the Top"