LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Nobby,

I believe I read on this thread or somewhere else that Lydiard preferred time trials to longer reps/intervals because they prepared you more for racing, meaning no rest period in a time trial, is this correct?

Runner 39:

At least that was the concept behind the Lydiard time trial, yes. I know people argue about this too; but his idea was that, "if you give your body certain exercise often enough, your body will become efficient at it."

Same concept has been refered by different people; if you've never trained at 5-minute-mile pace, you can't expect to run at 5-minute-mile pace in the race. If you always do interval-type training in which you run a certain distance fast but already follow that with recovery (be it jog or walk), your body will accustomed to doing that; it will look for a rest period. Again, simple enough consept to me. I don't know why some people would have to argue with that to prove this wrong or otherwise... I know YOU are not trying to argue. Just making a point.

Nobby,

I haven't read Tayler's story, so I am not sure what he did in training that was marvelous. I'll guess that he quit his hard reps before he dug himself a hole he couldn't climb out of - recover from.

I will comment about "anaerobic" training - almost a completely false term unless one is running reps whic last just 5 seconds (or less) and have 3 minutes or more recovery between reps. Most runners do way too many anaerobic reps. They should stop way before they are wiped out!

Turning workouts into races is a huge mistake, generally, unless you haven't raced in weeks and need a "tune-up." Just because someone can do 20 x 400m hard, doesn't mean it is going to be better than 10 x 400 or even 5 x 400m hard. Part of the problem is just running "hard" or "fast" rather then setting out to run at an appropriate pace relative to one's ability. Let's say that means running some 400s at 1-mile pace if you are a miler. I know people who hate to be pinned down to a time don't like this statement, but I stand by it. To reiterate, running some 400s at a pace appropriate to one's ability is highly beneficial and better than arbitrarily running 400s at a hard pace and stopping "whenever you are tired."

Here is the rub: the amount of performance gain from doing anaerobic training is limited in comparison to aerobic training. This statement confirms Lydiard's method in principal. Anaerobically training may directly improve anaerobic capacity enough to run 3-4 seconds faster in the mile by doing 20 x 400m hard. So, a runner training for weeks may go from 4:34 in the mile to 4:31 or 4:30. Overall, because many 400s are run (*which actually do have a substantive aerobic component according current science research) the time improvement for a 5:00 miler after a year of doing 400s might improve him or her to 4:30 (first to 4:34 because the 400s and other running done improved aerobic capacity and then a final 4 seconds of improvement because of anaerobic capacity developement - down to 4:30, overall).

In contrast, a runner focusing on year-round aerobic developement, not just duing a 3-4 month marathon base prior to more intense but low volume training, and adding in just a few reps as the race season approaches, say 5 x 400m quick, will more likely see a faster 1-mile time (4:22, for example) and a better ability to withstand several races in a short time.

So, what I am proposing is simple: most people run too many hard / fast reps and make workouts into races. Most people would be well advised to focus more on overall aerobic capacity development and use small amounts of fast rep training and for not many weeks if they want to reach their ultimate potential. This statement, I believe, is in full support of the late-great Arthur Lydiard's main training principles. If I am wrong, I appoligize to Arthur but not for the statements - becuase I think they are right.

Tinman

Tinman:

I think you're pretty much "spot-on". In fact, particularly for high school runners, I'd rather see them doing 200 repeats for speed and use races for anaerobic development/race specific training. I actually really don't see much importance of young kids doing too many 400s. They're tough and you may puke and feel great pride with working your guts out (literally) but I doubt how much gain you'll get in the actual competitions if you keep doing things like that.

The famous "Richard Tayler Story" is this: Tayler needed to do some anaerobic training so Arthur took him to near-by high school. He told him to go around the field fast once, and jog one; fast one and jog one, till he "hits the wall." While Tayler was doing this, school's runners and their coach came around. They knew who Richard Tayler was so they asked Arthur, not quite knowing who HE was, what he's doing. "Repetitions," he said. Well, they knew that much. So they said, "how many is he doint?" Arthur said, "I don't know; I'm not counting them." They said, "how fast is he doing?" Arhtur said, "I don't know, I'm not timing them." Then he turned around and asked them, "How far around this field?" They looked at each other and asked him who he was, so Arthur said, "I'm his coach." When Tayler was done, they asked him the same questons but the same answers came back--he didn't know how many he did, how fast he was running, had no idea how far the oval was. But he did them till he had enough--till he achieved the desired physiological reactions; and that was the important aspect of it.

Tinman, I think you gave coach Kvalheim a appropriate advise of changing recovery jog of, what's her name, Suzanne?, from 100m to 200m (when performing 200m repeats). I think she would be much better off doing them that way. Arthur would have been proud.

Tinman:

I think you're pretty much "spot-on". In fact, particularly for high school runners, I'd rather see them doing 200 repeats for speed and use races for anaerobic development/race specific training. I actually really don't see much importance of young kids doing too many 400s. They're tough and you may puke and feel great pride with working your guts out (literally) but I doubt how much gain you'll get in the actual competitions if you keep doing things like that.

The famous "Richard Tayler Story" is this: Tayler needed to do some anaerobic training so Arthur took him to near-by high school. He told him to go around the field fast once, and jog one; fast one and jog one, till he "hits the wall." While Tayler was doing this, school's runners and their coach came around. They knew who Richard Tayler was so they asked Arthur, not quite knowing who HE was, what he's doing. "Repetitions," he said. Well, they knew that much. So they said, "how many is he doint?" Arthur said, "I don't know; I'm not counting them." They said, "how fast is he doing?" Arhtur said, "I don't know, I'm not timing them." Then he turned around and asked them, "How far around this field?" They looked at each other and asked him who he was, so Arthur said, "I'm his coach." When Tayler was done, they asked him the same questons but the same answers came back--he didn't know how many he did, how fast he was running, had no idea how far the oval was. But he did them till he had enough--till he achieved the desired physiological reactions; and that was the important aspect of it.

Tinman, I think you gave coach Kvalheim a appropriate advise of changing recovery jog of, what's her name, Suzanne?, from 100m to 200m (when performing 200m repeats). I think she would be much better off doing them that way. Arthur would have been proud.

i like what tinamn is saying. i know he is not really arguing with others, but i am. :) tomorrow i will do 3x400 with 2min rest at around 800 pace. a hard, sharp, peaking session. i win't do 6x400. i won't do 10x400. more reps would not be better anyway, as keeps being presented throughout this argument. i wont do 3000 pace, or 1500 pace. now i might feel off and my 800 pace for the day will be slower or vice versa. but the fact is, 3x400 at 800 pace is what i am planning, and i see absolutely nothing wrong with doing exactly that and no more and no less based on all the variables of the season timing and my next race and all. sorry i'm rambling. so i'm still rejecting this idea that you just cannot really plan it. and i also completely reject that cerutty was the same way. i have his book. sorry to mix it up, but there are many many things on this thread which i just don't understand when compared to what i have read and what i have seen. oh, and no i'm not a 10000m gold medallist, so none of this counts at all. please just disregard. :)

Ooops, sorry for the double-reply. I was so impressed with your comment, I had to send it twice...???

nobby you are a good guy but whenever anyone challenges that lydiardism is not for everyone you gets your titties in a twister and say things like

Nobby wrote:

Seriously, I don't mean to be derogatory but at the end of the day, Richard Tayler has the Commonwealth Games gold medal and most of non-believers don't.

lydiard did not work for all runners. it may have even destroyed many runners which does not make headlines. lydiard principles are for some runners, and other principles are for other runners. and yes other runners really did other principles and not a form of lydiardism that their coach stole from the man who invented it all. example someone was saying just because rono didn't stretch that it must therefore be lydiard that he was following.

Well giddyup, Cowboy.

Why is three a magic number? What would be wrong with five if you felt like you had some gas in the tank at three?

Or, if you were really, really, struggling after two, what would be the point of destroying yourself to get that third one?

Certainly, when Arthur had people doing anaerobic training, it was at efforts that were fairly comparable to their racing efforts. He wouldn't have sent Tayler off to run 400s, or something resembling them, so fast that he was tired after four or five repeats. But the idea that there is something magical will happen after twenty repeats that wouldn't happen at sixteen or that might not be extended by going to twenty three is unfounded.

None of that means that you don't plan it. Arthur planned things like crazy and Cerutty did as well from what I gather. But there's a difference between laying out a plan and being a slave to it. As to Tayler, Arthur constructed a plan that called for interval work to commence at a certain time. Once that happened, there was a general sense of direction as to what shape those intervals took. The more precise part of that plan, in the Lydiard system, was likely to be carried out as a time trial. So in your case, rather than do 3x400 at precisely your race pace, you might do a 600 meter time trial at your race pace.

c'mon guys admit it. the lydiard love-in needed me to mix it up a bit. you know you want me here. 3 is the magic number for planning this session. i agree that execution must be flexible , just like a 20 mile run - what if you feel like stopping at 15 miles? should you go to 25 miles if you feel good at 20 iles? is more better? what is the reason i choose 3x400 for tomorrow? if i struglle with 2, then something is wrong. i ran too fast, i got tired for some reason. we haope for the best. but the plan is 3x400, after much analysis of where i am and where i am going. if i have more in the tank at 3, i shall not do 5, because that is noty the point of tomorrow's workout. nor shall i do 600 timetrial, because that is not the point either. 3x400 at 800 pace is better than 600 at 800 pcae for tomorrow. notice that i have analysed this situation. why is this bad? why is it wrong to say this is the goasl session? try to do it correctly, and don't look for more or less. lydiard 600 time trial - why not 700? stop at 500 if you are really huting? am i making my point here, lydiardites? mr jtupper, do you have anything to add to this discussion, sir? :)

I think HRE is trying to tell you a 600m time trial is good tune up for your 800m race, you could always do some 100m strides after the TT.

More towards the point, what phase are you at in your training, if your in race phase then the time trial is the way to go, if you in speed/anaerobic phase then do the 400's or 200's.

Nobby,

It makes sense to me to do the time trial, if you are doing 5k/10k races what distances should the time trials be, my guess would be 5k/10k time trials or close to those distances at a srong effort. What about a 3000m time trial at your goal 5k pace when you are in the last few weeks of the coordination phase or should you just run the 3000m TT hard and let the time take care of itself. I guess my main question in regard to time trials is should they be strickly run by feel or can you incorporate some aspect of goal race pace.

Thanks again for the advice.

i'll be doing some time trials soon. they are called 800m races, to end off the season, and i hope to change my letsrun handle then. :) why is the 600 tt the way to go? 3x400 is the plan. i'll save the 'one timer' for the races, or else i risk racing too much. now you are going to get me started on the lydiard time trial concept....oh no.....

Sorry but couldn't think of any better way...it depends.

If you need to sharpen more, 3000, or even 2000, would be good. If you're coming off the edge, go for a long run, like 12 miler, instead. Strides are good but may tip you off the edge as well so be careful. One time I gave this girl one too many 100 and we had to fix it the morning of the race. Have you had an experience that you feel so light and sharp at the start of a 10k; took off feeling really good...only to run out of gas half way in? You're off the edge then. You shouldn't have done too many fast stuff; you needed to put the lid on.

To Nobby,

Where can I get Arthur Lydiards's first book?

Henry Rono

Henry Rono wrote:

To Nobby,

Where can I get Arthur Lydiards's first book?

Henry Rono

*listing*title

Sorry, skuj, but couldn't help... Lydiard's runners did stretch.