Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Khadaffi, What you write is Correct .... if you take what is written in Arthurs schedules literally .. remember Arthur never wanted "published" generic schedules, the publishers wanted them gor marketing purposes.

A very basic summary : The idea is that one phase moves into the other whilst all the time maintaining the Aerobic base. I see similar aspects with modern day Coaches.

HRE has eluded to others and what they did based on Arthurs ideas. As said in previous threads .. I have seen what Arthur has put together for an elite athlete and it did not look anything like what is published in the books.

I believe I too am out of here !!!!

Ok. You can go, but read and what i write, might be you aren´t older to learn something more out of the Lydiard paradigm.

Sorry that you can´t understand what i mean by SPECIFIC TRAINING and how teh training variables shall be done in the training periodization.

By the way. The long run isn´t specific training for the middle-distance training (800m, 1500m-mile, 3000m, 5000m 1000m) is specific training only for the marathon or the HM eventually. Are you able to let me know where Lydiard excludes the long run for that distances middle distance events. Lydaird uses the long run during the anaerobic block.

Hill training Lydiard-style isn´t specific training. In the concept of modern-specific training the hill training Lydiard-style should be done in the introdutory block, not done in one block after the aerobic block and before the anerobic block, because the hill training Lydiard-style is generic training not specific training. The long run Lydiard style should be avoid during the anaerobic block, bercause it´s generic training and not specific training. Otherwise the interval training of aerobic power that is also generic training, not specfific training, should be done during introductory phases of training and not in the anaerobic phase-block. Etc, etc etc.

In the modernity in-date training methodology, the Lydiard training permisses are correct. To enhance the aerobic condition is common sense and we all agree with that old or modern training. However many lydaird training variants should change for another moment of the season, should be up side down. As long as the season continues, more and more specific training should be run.

Regarding books, if I ask again, would I get a different response? I took your short list of modern coaches, and will manage my education by myself, at my leisure. Your long ago book recommendation of "Les enfants d'Achille et de Nike", to debunk "The Father of Jogging", is still on my list, but I regret to say, it didn't feature in my priorities yet.

I didn't find any significant, meaning changing typos in this last post, but nevertheless have two main comments:

Canova describes different periods, going from general to specific training: FUNDAMENTAL -> SPECIAL -> SPECIFIC. During the FUNDAMENTAL period, he speaks first of a period of extension of mileage, followed by a period of adding intensity. This seems to contradict your notion of simultaneously working on both equally important variables at every moment of season periodization. In this period, Canova works on quantity first, then adds quality.

It's simply incorrect to say that Lydiard neglects "SPECIFIC" training. Once you've built up "AEROBIC" and "ANAEROBIC" support, Lydiard's "SPECIFIC" phase is the "COORDINATION" phase, which includes race distance and near race pace time trials and development races. These specific "time trial workouts" provide key feedback for identifying any weaknesses, and customizing your remaining training.

Lydiard's introduction of these "SPECIFIC" workouts were one of the key differentiators of Lydiard's methods, versus those used by the interval trained athletes, at that time, whose bodies expected periodic breaks during races.

Whatever your experience with modern training, I think much of your criticisms about Lydiard come from a wrong or incomplete understanding.

If we summarize Lydiard blocks like this:

AEROBIC -> HILL -> ANAEROBIC -> COORDINATION -> RACING

we can see many similarities to one of Canova's descriptions:

INTRODUCTORY -> FUNDAMENTAL -> SPECIAL -> SPECIFIC

You are essentially looking at Lydiard's GENERAL phases, and faulting them for not being SPECIFIC. By comparison, do you also think Canova's descriptions of the INTRODUCTORY period, or REGENERATION runs also suffer for not being SPECIFIC?

As we move closer to the racing season, Lydiard's COORDINATION, and of course RACING periods incorporate more SPECIFIC training.

Modern training may introduce SPECIFIC work sooner, but you only demonstrate your wrong understanding, when you claim that Lydiard ignores SPECIFITY.

For shorter distance runners, Lydiard's long runs are used for AEROBIC maintenance, rather than a SPECIFIC workout.

rekrunner wrote:

Whatever your experience with modern training, I think much of your criticisms about Lydiard come from a wrong or incomplete understanding.

How might I understand Lydiard training ? It´s impossible. Only the adept that got close contact with Lydiard understands that training. Well, some among them the predestinates they do gestalt parapsychology, holism psychology and the art of coaching what able them to know what is that training.

I guess you aren´t happy with what I say, but finally you seem to come out from past outdate bungle training obscurity to the new morning of modern training.

First. I´m not the one that did recommend that French ? book.

Second, I may admit that you read me and you pay attention to my posts on this thread, and besides you understand quite well what I write despite my poor english.

Third. Questions about Renato Canova shall be shall be answered by him. I simply name his overall idea that main characteristic of modern training is specificity.

Four. Lydiard neglects the specific training for 3 kinds of reasons. One is what I say in my last posts, the order of what tends to be generic or tends to be specific is upside down along the season periodization. Second reason why he doesn´t deal with specificity how the modern training deals it´s because he lasts too much time without specific training. As Renato Canova did write many times the specific training shall be not just the ultimate training target of the distance training approach but shall be introduced as soon as possible when the training analysis reports that the runner did reach a high plateau of shape condition. Renato Canova says that in the modern training methodology even at the start of the season periodization you estimate what the runners gets to a certain plateau/percent of his best shape condition, 85% by the way, all training must shall be done with specific workouts that does a stimulus demand at that 85% shape condition, and not use workouts that are the generic type or go back to basic aerobic training.

Third. What Lydiard means by specific training it´s not specific training as should be. We may discuss if that kind of Lydiard time trials are specific training really indeed, for an 800m runner and for a 10000m runner or HM and marathon runner as well. In my opinion one time trail it´s not quite specific workout . However I can´t comment the Lydiard training in every detail. But apart that detail, the in-out 50mts or the long run isn´t specific training at all, and both is done during what Lydiard considers specific phase.

Let me do one example with food. You want to cook one vegetable soup. The cook gets some water, several kind of vegetables, some oil and salt etc. That ingredients are all specific to one rich soup. Then you try to put some coca-cola on that mix that´s the soup. You spoil that soup because coca-cola isn´t specific to the soup.

Another example. Both guys want to cook one plate dish. You give the same ingredients to both: meet, cheese, bread, vegetables (carots, tomato), oil etc. One does one plate in the nouvelle cuisine style – not too much food a small plate of food but very qualified, very specific I would say. The other one with the same ingredients, tries one hamburger kind of junk food , but it´s not specific at all, because doesn´t satisfied the wealth requirements it´s too much food, the hamburger is one poor dish, despite does more food contain that the one of nouvelle-cuisine. Here the good direction, the correct food modulation. From Quality to Quantity.

If anyone of you guesses that training modernity has to present one new training variable, you are wrong. It´s why you can´t understand why Lydiard gets some training principles and some good define to what results in performance enhance to some extend. Aerobics and anaerobic. Speed and endurance. Lactic and alactic, distance and intensity, mileage volume and speed. The same variables that ever existed.

But then Lydiard mixed the ingredients in old style. The modern training deals with the same training variables but organizes and manage that variables a different way than outdate Lydiard training. The main focus of modern training is SPECIFICITY.

What I mean it´s about variable training organization, training methodology. We haven´t got yet to the training individualization. The training individualization is different training aspect.

Once again, all that your questions you shall ask to Renato Canova and the Lydiard fellows.

But i may comment one aspect. It´s not enough to spell a word, to put one mane like specific, it´s necessary to be specific either.

About me, let me say that my season training peridization does no phases or blocks, goes from B to C, be A the past training backgroud, the B today and C is the next main goal. the next main goal can be tomorrow, the next week, the next season, or the entire career, and i do daily analysis of the training report by my own observation when i can be present to see what´s next, and I when it´s hard to be present or get that training report, it´s a weekly analysis. I tend to forget most of the classic periodisations, from Matveiev, to Lydiard, to Renato Canova or everyone else. I did overcome the phase of the school student. No micro-cycle. No meso cycles, etc. Only the pure mangement of training variants with the specific training target at the top of the priority.

But i try to understand you all. Some of you didn´t get the level of coach master yet. I did coach more than one thousand distance runners male and female, and i always remember by by memory most of the individual training workout i gave since 1976. If you ask me, if as a coach i do the same training idea that had in the 70s or 80s, i wil say that i don´t. If you ask me if i get some doubts, yes i do. If you ask me if i think i will have the same training idea in 2 decades from now on, i will say i think i don´t. "MUTATIS MUTANTIS" is one of my rules.

I could ask the same question: How can I understand modern training if no one wrote any books? But nevermind that, I'm past asking for books.

I don't have any special personnel connection with Lydiard, or any Lydiard adepts. My knowledge only comes from this forum, presentations at the Lydiard Foundation website, and a couple Lydiard books. But I think I developed a fairly thorough understanding of Lydiard's method in about a year. I've been trying to understand his critics ever since, but there is always too little data beyond opinions and conclusions.

Regarding the French book recommendation, sorry if I'm mixing you up with "not a fanatic" here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2481404&page=7

If you are really not this guy, you should be aware that a lot of people will make the same assumption I made. It's not easy to know when people change anonymous handles so often.

I'm quite happy with what you say now. You are actually answering some of my questions! This may annoy or confuse everyone else, but I really want to hear your comments about modern training. But at least permit me to speak up when I think you are interpreting Lydiard the wrong way. I don't want to be offensive, but it just seems to me that some of your criticisms about Lydiard are based on an understanding that is the complete opposite of mine. If you think I'm wrong about Lydiard, I'd like to hear that too. I'm mostly a runner. I'm no master coach by formation or experience, but just read a few books when I'm not running.

I'm only trying to understand what you write, and you wrote: "Specificity is one training concept that is miss in the Lydiard training". This sounds like you mean he doesn't ever do it at all. But my understanding is that event SPECIFICITY is introduced in the later periods, closer to the racing season, when the athlete is ready. The COORDINATION phase is SPECIFIC to the athletes desired event. An 800m runner, a 10K runner, and a marathon runner will have very different COORDINATION phases. Time trials are SPECIFIC, according to my understanding of SPECIFICITY, with distances near race distances (could be over or under distance), and a pace near race pace. Development races are SPECIFIC. But yes, not all the workouts, i.e. 50m windsprints, and the weekly long runs, can be called SPECIFIC.

If you mean to say SPECIFICITY is not emphasized early enough, or not enough in general, and some periods are too long where it is not emphasized at all, this is another thing than saying it is completely missing.

I compare your comments to Renato, since you give him as an example of a modern training coach, and there is abundant information here about his training methods and philosophies. With respect to SPECIFICITY, I just note the same general trend from GENERAL to SPECIFIC training, in spite of different approaches, and different details (e.g. some circuit drills, and other specific support in earlier phases).

I know that my buddy Kim Stevenson has a lot on over the next week or so and has bailed on this for a while. However, I know he feels that once again .. interpretation is at the bottom of this .. At times he curses those schedules !!!! .. only because others argue about 'minor' detail they may pick up.

He told me a few weeks ago that he and Nobby had an exchange on how he was carrying out Hill work with a couple of his athletes .. He geared the workout to suit the athlete ... .. They were both in agreement .. Is that workout mentioned in Arthurs Books or papers .... No it is not.

He not only uses the word SPECIFIC to training but also to the athlete and that athletes situation.

I generally never read the schedules in any training book. Maybe that's my advantage.

I don't think the case here is misunderstanding schedules though. "khadaffi on power" (what a bad handle!) is saying the whole way Lydiard "mixes" (or doesn't mix) the "aerobic" and "anaerobic" training is no longer the best way to structure your training. I don't want to debate it, but still would like to hear more about his ideas of modern training.

rekrunner wrote:

"khadaffi on power" (what a bad handle!)

If you permit me let´s take a break.

You take so many of your time to write on this thread that i think you have some genuine interest in know what´s my opinion might you agree or you don´t. In my opinion you realize that i know more than what my poor english seems to reveal.

But let´s take a break. Citizenship apart i don´t know what´s your citizenship. With no offense to the american people i want to say that in my opinion the Lybia rebellion have some american agents working to get Kadaffi out of power. If you want to know my opinion read the reports and intreviews from Chomsky on Lybia.

Saying this, i hate dictators and tirany and kadaffi is one of many dictators.

But changing conversation. I will satisfy you. From now on i will post with the nickname "Kadaffi out of power". After all it´s just another my irony.

One more point. You are not one Lydiard single mind adept. Might be you catch your identity, your aren´t what i think you are, might be you take the mask of Lydiard adept, but you are clever to understand what i write and you know that what i write does some training coerence and not what the Lydiard folks they think about me, that i´m crazy.

You got the training knowledge to not trust on the Lydiard cult.

Soon i will reply to your last comments.

OK. I've waited 3 years, I can wait a little more. Like I said before, Lydiard made a lot of sense to me. I'm just wondering what's wrong with it. Maybe my strength is I have too little knowledge, so I'm still impressionable, and eager to learn.

I'm an American based in Europe. I see what's happened recently in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, but admit I don't really understand deeply the situation, except that a lot of people are fed up with their leaders.

I prefer anonymity in this forum, so it's against my nature to ask, but I'm wondering your nationality too, since you just claimed you did not recommend the French book. Is it possible that there is more than one of you, or was it so long ago you forgot? As you can see above, a popular opinion is that you are some well known "Latin" critic with Spanish/Portuguese background (and sometimes even an infamous Canadian). You mentioned once (maybe it was you?) making mistakes because of typing on a Cyrillic keyboard. Are you Russian, or from some other Eastern country? Whatever you say, don't ever ever admit to me that you are really the well known Portuguese/Spanish coach under a false pseudonym, or I may have to commit voluntary seppuku to restore honor to me and my family.

Check out the huge Lydiard/Daniels thread on here. More info written by Thge Lydiard crew.

Link is : http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=964958

Thanks. I've read a few of the "long" threads already, including that one, and the long Canova thread. Good thing too, because the one you link seems to have disappeared -- I just get a blank page.

I have checked as well. You are right .. Blank page ... Not sure what Letsrun have doine but that was one of the biggest threads on here, went on for a year or so.

Quite a lot of crazies but good contributions by the guys who knew Arthur.

That is a bummer !!!!

Problem is some of the crazies have discouraged Nobby and others from coming on here as many of the attacks are "bananas" .. interestingly, every one of the "Lydiardites" is contactable (unlike many of us !!!!!) and in most cases are happy to be.

Barbara Ann wrote:

I know that my buddy Kim Stevenson has a lot on over the next week or so and has bailed on this for a while. However, I know he feels that once again .. interpretation is at the bottom of this .. At times he curses those schedules !!!! .. only because others argue about 'minor' detail they may pick up.

He told me a few weeks ago that he and Nobby had an exchange on how he was carrying out Hill work with a couple of his athletes .. He geared the workout to suit the athlete ... .. They were both in agreement .. Is that workout mentioned in Arthurs Books or papers .... No it is not.

He not only uses the word SPECIFIC to training but also to the athlete and that athletes situation.

Barbara Ann

What is outdate in the Lydiard training is the training methodology concept, the deep training structure, and that is reflected on concrete schedules.

If we want to look to hundred or thousand of Lydiard training schedules, some done by Lydiard himself, many others done by Lydiard disciples, you may find something different that what is written in the Lydiard books eventually. To base the Lydiard method by individual schedules merely, it´s an impossible task, it´s nothing but details, is nothing but to look for the surface of the problem. I accept that we might look for schedules that are Lydiard training paradigm not schedules done in some training contexts that we don´t know who they are, what is the goal. The schedules that contains the Lydiard training paradigm are the 2 ones I want to name.

I have in front of me 2 interesting Lydiard schedules. One is the 1964 Peter Snell day-by-day complete training plan. Some workouts of the 1964 schedule were done by Ron Davies and Peter Snell together for the Tokyo Olympics . The second one important schedule that i have is 1974 Pekka Vasala when he travels to NZ to be with Lydiard is coached in NZ in the presence of mr. Lydiard. This schedule gave me Pekka Vasala himself. It´s a day-by-day training log. I remember you that Pekka Vasala on that occasion was training for 1974 european champs, after his 1972 1500m Olympic win.

10 years did pass from 1964 Peter Snell schedule to 1974 Pekkas Vasala schedule. Both schedules are very similar. I don´t see no detail, no exception to what Lydiard training teaches in their books about his training method., how to build one season, the blocks, the long run all the training elements (variants) that is accept by “pure” or “classic” Lydiad training.

In every detail, in every training workout, in every single line, in every single workout, what Lydiard uses is his "pure" Lydiard training method and it´s all. We may discuss and analyze detail by detail, training session by training session, workout by workout, what both runners did, what Lydiard did prescribes for both doesn´t go out one single step out of classic Lydiard training. It´s pure Lydiard training.

Consequently I can´t accept that by the name of the “art of training”, “holism”, “gestalt” whatever other idiot consideration some continues to do demagogy, while say that if we look some other schedules we will see that Lydiard training is different to what I know. No way.

If Lydiard build that both schedules for both top class runners Peter and Pekka, and what is done is pure Lydiard training with precision, it´s precisely the same training profile Lydiard writes in his books, what he speaks in the conferences, why may I accept that someone else comes to this board or every other place, be you, Kim Stevenson, wetcoast, HRE, every other and attempt to show that after all what Lydiard prescribes, what Lydiard wrote in the books, it´s not exactly what Lydiard did precisely ? I don´t.

As the Lydiard training is an expand phenomenon it´s possible that some other person than Lydiard, everyone else eventually, might build one different schedule that goes out of the main Lydiard principle, the “pure” one, the “classic” one. But i can´t accept that the Lydiard training methodology is different than what i read in the books. shall I burn the books ?

The first step to rich training methodology analysis is to analyze the representative ones schedules, the most representative ones, not the Lydiard Joe schedule.

I get 2 very important individual schedules from Lydiard. The 1964 Peter Snell or 1974 Pekka Vasala. What Lydiard schedules is the confirmation that what Lydiard schedules is “pure” Lydiard training and not what one folk guy that thinks he understands Lydiard and does the authority to change the schedule. Both 2 schedules are paradigmatic how Lydiard built his training day-by-day.

The Lydiard training is one training system, one method with training criteria. If one schedule goes out of that criteria it’s not Lydiard training. Lydiard training does one deep structure, it´s not an amalgam of training variants done out of the system, out of the method.

Lydiard training is outdate because the Lydiard methodology is outdate, it doesn´t matter how many schedules you might show that does different to what is written in the Lydiard books. The problem is in the method, not in the details or what could be different to the classic interpretation.

One more point. With the comment you do in your last post, i see ou don´t understand what i mean by specific training.

I wonder if these things disappear due to some scheduled (or accidental) database maintenance.There is a "copy" stored at "web.archive.org", but looks like only the first 99 pages out of 128.

Barbara Ann wrote:

I have checked as well. You are right .. Blank page ...

rekrunner wrote:

Modern training may introduce SPECIFIC work sooner, but you only demonstrate your wrong understanding, when you claim that Lydiard ignores SPECIFITY.

For shorter distance runners, Lydiard's long runs are used for AEROBIC maintenance, rather than a SPECIFIC workout.

What are the kind specific workouts that lydaird does during what i names specific block ? i don´t see no specific workout.

The long run that Peter Snell and Pekka Vasala did during the specific block, that both did up to one week before the race is not specific workout.

The in-out 50-50 (50mts fast followed by 50 mts slower that we can see in the Lydaird training that is done during the specific period is not one specific workout.

The kind of intervals that Lydiard does during the specific block is not specific workout.

The daily easy mileage that the Lydiard runners they do, it´s a good thing for overcompensation and recover from the fast training but isn´t specific training.

What lasts to be consiedered specific workouts Nothing at all. You call to the conversation Renato Canova so many times, you shall read what Renato considers diffrent specific workouts related to every distance event. You will see that Lydaird training doesn´t specific training.

Read what Renato says what is one specific workout.

The Lydiard anaerobic block is made of anerobic and fast training workouts with no specificity.

You have me at a slight disadvantage, as I do not have the the Snell and Vasala schedules. I also don't know if, at this point in their season, they were inside one of these classic phases, or if they were in a "continuation of racing" phase, which just maintains capabilities, without overtraining or overracing.

I recall here, you said that specificity was a missing concept from Lydiard, and this lack of specificity is one thing that separates his outdated method from every modern method. This is the statement I reacted to. I said that it is not missing, that it is included in the COORDINATION phase, specifically with "TIME TRIALS" and "DEVELOPMENT RACES". I further said that this was a key concept that separated his method from "interval trained" runners at the time. In this phase, "TIME TRIALS" are a key tool to help identify and correct weaknesses, not only because it's "self-correcting", but also by signaling how to change your training (i.e. with under or over distance racing).

I agree that the Lydiard "MARATHON CONDITIONING" and "HILL" phases are generic. The same for 800m to marathon. The "ANAEROBIC TRAINING" phase is customized for the athletes event, but I think it's still not SPECIFIC, the way you mean it. It's the training that comes *AFTER* the "ANAEROBIC TRAINING", that, I say, incorporates SPECIFIC training. So maybe 18 weeks are not specific, but then the last 6 weeks include specific training.

I don't want to argue what you mean by SPECIFIC, or if Lydiard is SPECIFIC like Renato, but hereafter I take it for granted that running race distance at near race pace (e.g. Lydiard's 3/4th effort, or 7/8th effort), qualifies as SPECIFIC training.

As you know, books are important for me. I don't have Snell's or Vasala's schedules, but I do have dusty 1962 copy of "Run to the Top". The chapter, "Building in Speed", comes right after our "learner" has completed the marathon training, and hill phases. What follows is 12 weeks of training at the track. These are the last 12 weeks of training before "THE RACE". Although not named here, these 12 weeks correspond to a 6 week "Anaerobic Training" phase, followed by a 6 week "Coordination+Taper" phase. He says, "Primarily, this first six weeks on the track primes the athlete for the RACES that lie ahead in the next six weeks." I interpret this to mean that the first 6 weeks, although customized for the athlete's event, could still be highly "non-specific". I have no issue with that. It's during the last 6 weeks, before "THE RACE", that Lydiard training includes "SPECIFIC" training: time trials and real races.

So, even though I earlier said I never looked at the schedules, let's take a quick look at schedules he published worldwide for me and the rest of the world in 1962. A couple chapters later, in "The Schedules", Lydiard includes customized 12 week schedules for 880 yds, 1 mile, 2 miles, 3 miles, 6 miles, and the marathon, as well as 3 1/8 mile and 6 1/4 mile cross-country. In all of the 12 week schedules, there are plenty of examples of time trials at race distance, and racing at half distance or double distance.

For the 880yd runner, the third week of month 2, on Tuesday, we find "This is the first of your time trials...". Full distance time trials are run for that week, and the next 3 weeks. Also mile races, 440yd races, and one 880yd race, before tapering for "THE RACE".

The other schedules (except the marathon) follow a similar pattern, with at least two time trials + races each week, in the last 6 weeks of training. The marathon has been supported all along by the initial marathon training, then the long runs. The marathon schedule doesn't include any full distance or double distance time trials, but interestingly includes one marathon race 3 weeks before "THE RACE".

The way I learned it, incorporating specific training, i.e. the full distance time trials, with over distance and under distance races, was a key factor in upsetting the "interval trained" runners at the time. There is a famous story about Murray Halberg creating a huge gap in the last 3 laps of a 6 mile (10K?) race, because all the other "interval trained" athletes wanted to stop and rest. Halberg created a 70-80 yd gap in one lap, because he was trained to race the whole way.

It is difficult but not hard if you follow his system. Let me explain. You run your peak miles during the base. This is the foundation that carries you through the program. If you are running 100 miles a week at near your best aerobic effort, you will be extremely fit. Also , you reduce your mileage slightly during the hill and track periods of training. For me, the hill bounding was the key. After do the strong runs during the base and the tough hill bounding workouts, the anaerobic ( track ) part were the easiest track sessions I have ever done. They were done faster than ever before and I was exhausted at the end of each workout but I seemed to float during the track time unitl the last rep or two and recover quickly. I think this was due to the strength and flexiblitly aquired during the hill sessions. This program will not guarantee you will be world class runner but it will make you the best you will be in this world. If you look at the Africans and sucessful Western Runners ( Paula is a good example ) the do lots of miles and follow a peak program that Mr. Lydiard perfected. Good luck to all with your future goals.