Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Antonio,

You mentioned Rui Silva will do interval training from "October November the year before the Olympics that will be run late July-early August of the next year".

My question is, in a modern training approach, what would an athlete typically do after a big event like the Olympics? Does he take a short 2 week break, a longer 6 week period with aerobic only training, or ???, before resuming a new training that includes intensive interval training of all paces?

Antonio Cabral wrote:Since every middle or distance event the main perfrom ability is RESISTANCE, and resistance is the result of SPEED VERSUS ENDURANCE, every predictor that says that one factor (speed or endurance) is less important that the other is wrong

you are talking drivel

it is unquestioned that in a 5k that 10k endurance woud be more important than 400m speed & if a calculator says so, it's conclusion not wrong

in this case, for 800m, it indicates 400m speed or 1500m endurance is = importance

either you agree with conclusion or not, but do not offer nonsensical garbage that all "calculators" are wrong

i asked you once about what you thought you coud run for 1500 or 3k at your peak & asked you what you thought your 400/800 ability was at the time

amazingly, you said you had no idea of any of these, which either indicates to me you are talking nonsense/have something to hide ( as every top level runner has a gut feeling at least what they coud run )/ have no interest in any mathematical approach - if it is the latter, that is entirely your choice, but don't dare suppose that the approach is wrong because you are mathematically, an ignoramus

Pete wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:If we want a serious, clean, transparent debate about what is Lydiard we need both to agree what´s define Lydiard training and what doesn´t. I try that my source is closer/near Lydiard as possible, what he wrote, what is writtent by him. If we go expand what the disciples they say, what the revisionists they write or do, we have no boundaries of what´s Lydiard training.

Very interesting point Antonio.

That leaves us with Nobby's explanation. Lydiard willed his intellectual property to Nobby. Barry Magee would be the other best source. Arthur told me that Barry and Nobby understood his ideas better than anyone.

ventolin^3 wrote:if a calculator says so, it's conclusion not wrong ... do not offer nonsensical garbage that all "calculators" are wrong ... don't dare suppose that the approach is wrong because you are mathematically, an ignoramus

ventolin, in spite of the force with which you offer your opinion, calculators will always be "wrong." The best one can hope for is to generate formulae that represent a reasonable fit to real performance data, with considerable associated uncertainty and error. Your refusal to acknowledge this uncertainty underlines your lack of understanding of predictive power of any given relationship (which may be packaged as a"calculator")

i have no clue where you got your phd from ( i woud never want to have gone there )

where does it say anything about "generate formulae that represent a reasonable fit to real performance data" ?

i see nothing on that website about using performance data

perhaps you shoud get a clue & juxtapose the situation : "formula that predicts times which real life athletes coud attempt to achieve if they ran races involved to perfection"

ventolin^3 wrote:perhaps you shoud get a clue & juxtapose the situation : "formula that predicts times which real life athletes coud attempt to achieve if they ran races involved to perfection"

So your work simply represents hypothetical fantasy then? OK, I get it, that's fine.

learn to read idiot :

"it's conclusion not wrong"

there is nothing specificied about how specifically accurate the conclusion is, just that the conclusion is accurate

"fantasy" ?

i'm sure an idiot with a phd from nowheresville woud conclude that

fortunately there are more discerning people in the world...

So what you are saying is that your conclusions are accurately stated. You're not stating that you calculator itself yields numbers with a meaing that is, in and of itelf, and accurate prediction of something real. That sounds OK to me.

eh ?

if that drivel is meant to mean "we are looking for a qualitative conclusion in this instance, on whether 400 speed or 10k endurance is more important to a 5k & we have a conclusion which agrees with the widely held premise that latter is of most importance" than yes, you have understood

as this is a thread about snell, let's see what we get for him if he had been running on a modern track

his 1'44.4 on grass has to be worth somewhere in region of 1'42.5 - 1'43.0, & any 800 guy who can run this fast has to have in region of 46.0 - 46.5 speed ( slower than this is unlikely & i don't think faster, as he used to say he didn't have the fastest 400 out of his rivals )

46.0 / 1'43.0 ->3'31.9

46.0 / 1'42.5 ->3'30.1

46.5 / 1'43.0 ->3'30.2

46.5 / 1'42.5 ->3'28.4

draw your own conclusions, but my gut feeling is that he was possibly a sub-3'30/3'30-flat guy & for all his "long runs" he was likely a better 800 guy than a 1500 one ( as anything 1'42 woud be considered better than a 3'30 in the current day )

When I took math in school, I did not get any credit, if I did not show my work, even if I had the right answer.

ventolin^3 wrote:

as this is a thread about snell, let's see what we get for him if he had been running on a modern track

his 1'44.4 on grass has to be worth somewhere in region of 1'42.5 - 1'43.0, & any 800 guy who can run this fast has to have in region of 46.0 - 46.5 speed ( slower than this is unlikely & i don't think faster, as he used to say he didn't have the fastest 400 out of his rivals )

46.0 / 1'43.0 ->3'31.9

46.0 / 1'42.5 ->3'30.1

46.5 / 1'43.0 ->3'30.2

46.5 / 1'42.5 ->3'28.4

draw your own conclusions, but my gut feeling is that he was possibly a sub-3'30/3'30-flat guy & for all his "long runs" he was likely a better 800 guy than a 1500 one ( as anything 1'42 woud be considered better than a 3'30 in the current day )

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

You mentioned Rui Silva will do interval training from "October November the year before the Olympics that will be run late July-early August of the next year".

My question is, in a modern training approach, what would an athlete typically do after a big event like the Olympics? Does he take a short 2 week break, a longer 6 week period with aerobic only training, or ???, before resuming a new training that includes intensive interval training of all paces?

First what Rui does/did. He uses to do 2-3 weeks of complete rest, miss the training followed by another few weeks with 3-4 days training every week.

Second, my opinion. I also agree to easy down the volume training and intensity few weeks after the season target goal. Take a break hollyday, get some fun, relax, then come back fresh cfor the next goal.

BUT THE MAIN TARGET DURING THE SEASON INTRO/PHASE 1 IS TO GET BACK TO MILEAGE, LT RUNS, FARTLEK, HILLS, INTERVAL TRAINING, SPECIFIC TRAINING, ALL TRAINING VARIANTS YOU ELECT, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Soon as possible means as soon as coach considers the runner shape condition permits/advices. But don´t forget that all might be done progressively and with care of overcompensation and recovery and regeneration.

J.O., Let's go back to the original statement, where you said running slow uses more fast twitch fibers.

J.R. wrote:

Slow twitch is slow, fast twitch is fast, running slow up hills is SLOW twitch, not fast.

J.O. wrote:

No, it's not. Try running a seven minute mile up a ten per cent hill, see how far you get? Not very far. Even in your younger days you would be gasping by the end of that mile. Hills require more effort even at slow paces, hence more recruitment of fast oxidative fibers.

Now you want to change to agree with me, talking about sprinting, and you don't talk about running slow up hill and fast twitch any more. What happened?

J.O. wrote:

J.R. running hard uphill either sprinting or in a 22 mile run uses both fast oxidative and slow twitch fibers.

Stop arguing about things you don't know.

So I was stating a fact, that is all, and you called me stupid, but now you agree with me.

The point is that no one gets faster by running slowly up hills, no matter how steep are the hills.

Pete wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:If we want a serious, clean, transparent debate about what is Lydiard we need both to agree what´s define Lydiard training and what doesn´t. I try that my source is closer/near Lydiard as possible, what he wrote, what is writtent by him. If we go expand what the disciples they say, what the revisionists they write or do, we have no boundaries of what´s Lydiard training.

Very interesting point Antonio.

When i think about music when i hear a new version of an old music played by another musician/band the author got the royalties. But if you play different key notes, like in a free jazz version of that same music theme then the author of this new and quite different version is still the composer.

But if one musician play some notes or keys from one existed music, but the number of keys it´s not enough to be considered plagiarism, now this music is from the player and not from the other musician that composed something similar.

When i think about painting, the author is not the author of every reproduction but if you try one similar reproduce of one painting, that only the experts they can say it´s a false paint, and you say that is an original painting, it´s illegal. The reproduce is from the painter that reproduces, and he can´t refuse to say that the painting is of him and not from the original he copied and did the reproduce.

When it´s a material invention, or a new scientific formula, the patent is registered, and on every reproduce the inventor gets some royalties/rights.

With one training method it´s all different. Some say that training is a science, some say it´s an art, some say both. But if you copy the training that one person is the author you don´t pay nothing at all. If you say you train JUST by influence you don´t pay at all. Therefore the training is yours, only if the coach send you a schedule and is payed for that is when you do but the coach aujthour is the one who build the training schedule.

Whatever be the case if you don´t need to pay or rights or royalties, it´s free and then what you do IT´S UNIVERSAL PROPERTY (domain). No owner. If it´s universal domain, it´s like everything else, it´s from an anonymous author, no owner, no property.

Consequently Lydiard training is JUST the training that Lydiard did wrote, or coached, for free, or payed. many coaches, runners, individuals, they claim to train a-la-Lydiard and the opposite.

Ok. This the legal/formal aspect. But let´s think about this peculiar case of training authorship or influence.

I taugh we got one consensus what´s characterize Lydiard training.

I might say, i do 100miles+long run+hills etc but i have nothing to do with Lydiard. I might say, i did very similar what Renato Canova did, but it´s not Renato´s training.

Run, training, be whatever you do it´s universal property, no author, no owner.

The musician Louis Amstrong, when asked if his music is folk music or don´t, he replies: "every music is folk, i never hear one horse singing".

It´s not me that says that it´s very hard to define what´s Lydiard and what is not. It´s Renato that says it. It´s not me that says that "more than 50% don´t know what is Lydiard training", it´s Peter Snell.

Early on, my main board is Lydiard training by Lydiard books, conferences, interviews what i know from the coach himself.

Recently i try the site of the Lydiard Foundation and what it´s said it´s Lydiard and what is not. I supposed it´s was an attempt to define Lydiard training and that i got a clear define. I was wrong. John Molvar tells that he knows Lydiard by Lydiard writings and he discusses and dispute and disagrees with Nobby what is and what isn´t Lydiard training.

Then the problem to define what´s Lydiard training really, showed to be more complex. I read about others that says they do Lydiard training, and they define Lydird training with some kind of training that in some aspects denies what i knew or read from Lydiard.

Actually, for some, we might train a-la-Lydiard but miss the 100miles. I don´t mean that they can´t simply run the 100 miles that would be logic. I mean they refuse to do the 100 miles and they say it´as well. Actually i know some people that says that we can do interval training during the aerobic Lydiard block but it´s still Lydiard, but i never knew Lydiard say or write such thing. Actually some might skip the long run and it´s still Lydiard.

So what you're saying, Antonio, if I may paraphrase, is all training is Lydiard training.

haha, kidding. Well put.

J.O. wrote:

Hills require more effort even at slow paces, hence more recruitment of fast oxidative fibers.

J.R. wrote:

The point is that no one gets faster by running slowly up hills, no matter how steep are the hills.

Both statements are true.

Greater resistance (uphill running) does require recruitment of larger motor neurons (FT fibers) but it doesn't involve increased frequency (aka rate coding). Applying the first principle trains strength; applying the second along with the first trains explosive power. Slow movements can therefore improve strength but don't directly improve speed. However, slow movements with added resistance are not a waste of time, at least not in the early stages of a buildup that will take several months to complete. On the contrary, resistance training even with slow movements can absolutely lay the groundwork that creates some adaptations that make it safer and more productive to train for speed down the road.

Some great stuff in here. Reading through it all, you can't help but notice some common themes. But this degree of similarity is downright spooky - look how much parts of these posts from two different people emphasize exactly the same concepts within one post apiece. Compare them, especially the underlined portions:1)

2)

3)

4)

Antonio,

Well I don't think I have ever said that Lydiard included interval training during aerobic phase. In fact if I ever said that, it was a decade ago when I was just learning all this stuff and made a lot of mistakes. If I was in doubt I would refer to anything Nobby said or Keith Livingstone...and there are a few more name - the usual suspects, HRE, Stevenson etc.

I think you mistook me for someone else on that one.

Like HRE said, Lydiard felt that Nobby and Barry knew his method the best. Sounds reasonable. Again, I would ask these sources before anyone else. I know I have read countless times in books, interviews and online and have talked to Nooby at fair length many times, as well as sat in his class for 9 hours too.

I don't think Jon Brown is a poor mimic of Lydiard. He has his own ideas just like it appears you do, which is fine. He coaches similar to the Lydiard method. I would assume he works within the parameters that hasn't been discussed in these Lydiard threads and that is, he is constantly dealing with where the athlete is, how he/she reacts to training etc etc, rather than just throwing out schedules....so perhaps he adjusts as he goes. Interesting you would say that about Brown. His coaching details are not that public, so I wonder how you came to this assumption (I live in the same city as him and know he is fairly offline compared to many coaches).

Anyway, some of the stimuli from fast work during the aerobic phase, to me sound as though they border on some of the stimuli you refer to when working with multi-pace complex schedules, for example: Lydiard's aerobic phase included gentle fartlek, hilly terrain and alactic strides. You talk of borderline aerobic/anaerobic intervals at times, sprints and hills....this talk between the two methods sound like they could be very much the same with some minor adjustments.

Anyway, when you suggest anaerobic and aerobic can live together year round, I can see that happening, yes, but hard anaerobic weekly or more year round has proven to be dangerous for the athlete, so I assume you must have more specific periods and slightly less specific periods and lower and higher mileage times of the year....see where I am going? Why don't you throw out a commonly prescribed weekly schedule with efforts and paces included? It would be educational to see it.

Thanks, All the best!!

Wettercoast (this week)