• i have a theory
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/2/2007 6:43AM - in reply to Snookie
      • i have a theory
      • Frank Horwill
    • BONKMAN
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/3/2007 12:16AM - in reply to Nobby
      • BONKMAN
      • Nobby,
        At what pace would you recommend the long 22-25 mile tempo runs be run if my marathon pace is 4 minutes per kilometer??
    • why not???
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/3/2007 11:41AM - in reply to Wetcoast
      • why not???
      • Wetcoast wrote:
        Are you suggesting Gebr had no base behind him? Correct me if I am wrong, but Lydiard base conditioning phase is not THAT slow. "top of one's aerobic capability" reads pretty hard if you ask me, especially on a hilly 22 miler.

        Are you suggesting Gebr takes months off of running and comes back doing hilly 22 milers as intervals...
        I think the plan for Haile was to take a few days off at the end of the racing season, maybe a couple of weeks I don't know, and then to do a sprint session. The sessionn was 300m 250m 200m 150m I cant remember the times, it was about 10 years ago when I read this, but the 300 was very quick, probably 400m pace, and the 150 was 17 seconds, so that would be flat out.
        Doing this session on fresh legs after a break from regular training means that the fitness is still there, but there is no chance of injury and speed comes easily. After this comes the endurance build up of mileage.
    • why not???
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/3/2007 12:09PM - in reply to Nobby
      • why not???
      • Nobby wrote:
        Hey! I still lurk to see how I'm being bad-mouthed! ;o)

        I think here's an interesting misconception of Lydiard again. He was never keen on mixing aerobic running and anaerobic running (I don't even want to use these terms in front of Richard Gibbens!) but "speed" was another matter. He was all so keen with speed development year round as well as long-term. People used to get mixed up and scratch their heads when Arthur said, "anaerobic intervals are not speed training." In his view, repetitions or interval training is to develop your anaerobic capacity. Sure you will acquire better mechanics by doing them simply because you had not been used to running at faster speed; but the main purpose of repetitions/intervals is to develop your anaerobic capacity to maximum (once again, I don't even want to bring up the term "running efficiency" in front of Richard...). But speed development; be it hill exercises or sprint drills, Arthur was very keen on that.

        Another thing is; I get quite a few e-mails from particularly younger runners, saying they want to run 5k/10k or even marathon. I feel like asking; what made them think those were their event? Right from the get-go, in his original book "Run to the Top", Arthur was keen on telling his athletes that, if they want to become a 5000m runner, start with 800 and 1500; if they want to become a marathon runner, do track distance events first (Barry Magee was a track runner way before he even tried his first marathon; as well as being a member of world record breaking 4 x 1 mile relay team AFTER he won the bronze medal in the marathon). Arthur was all keen on "honing" their speed as much as they can before they actually move into their ultimate event. Arthur's idea was to find out their basic speed first (with 200m time) and determine their best suited even first. This, of course, would have to be done AFTER they sharpen themselves (not by repetitions, but drills and hills and striding, etc.).

        I had an interesting talk with Jeff Johnson (I think someone mentioned about his team) and his "backward Lydiard" experience. We sort of agreed that, by introducing young athletes to "light" intervals FIRST, they strengthened their legs (ligaments, tendons and all) so they could handle more demanding (distance) work later. I told him, in the Lyidard program, that was taken care of when his runners started out with cross country training. When you go back and check out the original "Run to the Top", his runners started out on time-based training schedule first, then as they got used to the distance work of up to 2-hours, they would start 10-week cross country schedule; then go through XC racing season; THEN they would start famous 100MPW schedule and the while shbang. So with all the XC running, banging their legs around and all, their legs were strong enough to withstand more banging (I call this "Chapter One").

        I'd be curious to see, however, if anybody out there start out their athletes with dose of intervals/repetitions (anaerobic work) and work their way backward to distance running...

        By the way, pardon me for being ignorant; who's Jan Olbrecht? Do you have any link or paper or article about his training? I'm very curious... But 28 medals in the last Olympics? Are you talking about Athens alone? How many medals are possible in track and field all put together? Or are you talking about other events as well? Or up to Athens? That number, I'd have to say, hard to believe...
        Nobby, you shouldn't fear Richard Gibbens, it's me you have to fear MMWA HAHAHAHAAAAA (extra echo for maximum scare factor)
        Arthur's terminology was wrong, Anaerobic energy is the main component of sprinting, it has diminishing contribution as the distance increases.
        So unfortunately, Lydiardism is in need of an update to prevent confusion.
        Actually Nobby, physiology is in need of an update to prevent confusion. Especially since Arthur's time the awareness that Lactate is one of the most important muscle fuels is being expanded. Now we have the proof that Lactic Acid is not even produced at all only Lactate.

        The good news for Lydiardists is that the new phsiological knowledge helps to proove the good aspects of old training knowledge, whilst suggesting that certain words be substituted for more accurate or relevant ones so that we are not blinding the layman with science. One of the biggest problems here is that physiologists are mostly lousy at biochemistry, and thus they muddy the water with their own confusion.



        I agree tha the shorter distances should be tackled first, I would go so far as to say that every ambitious distance runner needs to run a good 800m race when they are young, or before they move up seriously to longer distances.
        The reason why I think that 800m pace is crucial for everyone, even marathon runners is that is helps to develop a long, powerful stride. Even those distance runners who seem to shuffle along such as Catherine Ndereba or Naoka Takahashi, need a good stride length to their 200+ strides per minute. Regardless of natural stride rate, all the best runners have a relatively long stride.

        Regarding your talk with Jeff Johnson, you bring up some interesting points. Just a few hills run hard are enough to help us have more power in our base training in my opinion.
    • Nobby
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/3/2007 1:21PM - in reply to why not???
      • Nobby
      • why not??? wrote

        Nobby, you shouldn't fear Richard Gibbens, it's me you have to fear MMWA HAHAHAHAAAAA (extra echo for maximum scare factor)
        HA HA HA HA HA!!! I love this! For that, I'd have to respond.

        Hey, now WE are talking. I totally agree with you. I think Arthur knew just enough physiology to be dangerous. I knew that as early as 1986 when I sat down with renowned physiologist, Dick Tayler of Australia. I don't think Arthur quite had a grasp on aerobic vs. anaerobic to be honest with you. But the point is; he had a general sense and what he did worked.

        Let me explain about this "interval is not speed training" talk--I'm sure many more others feel the same way as you do. You go out and do some repeats at slightly faster pace than all the other plodding LSD. Now you (1) stimulated your anaerobic pathway so that you can manage the faster pace more easily, and (2) you start to improve your runnig mechanics with faster pace (=wider range of motion) that it would be easier to run faster. Therefore, most people consider interval training as "speed training". Yes, because you get faster. But for most of you, what distance do you use for your intervals? 400m? 800m? Or even a mile??? How's your breathing? You'd be gasping for air, right? Now, THAT, to Lydiard, is anaerobic training--you're trying to develop your tolerance to oxygen debt as much as you can...and you need to do that in order to race well. But one of the first signs of getting into high oxygen debt is nueromuscular breakdown--whether it's caused by lactic acid or whatever; you know when you're getting into it. You start to struggle. Your chin sticks out; shoulders come up... You can't lift your knees as high; you clinch your fist and arms flying all over the place... To Lydiard, this is no state to develop your "fine speed". To him, speed, as a sprinter, is the nerve and technique thing. That is why, toward the end of the program when you're supposed to do pure speed training, he would suggest you go down to the track, run fast for 100m and take a long easy jog around the rest of the track, minimum of 3 minutes... If there's wind, do it WITH the wind because, if you did that against wind (particularly strong head wind), you'll start to break the form. You want to run smoothely and relaxed; none of those tense muscles or clinching fists and locked jaws. Speed training, to him, is this type of things, easy hill springing to strengthen your ankles and work on the form; sprint drills; or running, say, 200 all out a few times with plenty of rest...

        I remember talking to Bob Sevene back in 1984...this was right after Joan Benoit won the gold medal. I asked him what his opinion on repetition training and speed training. His reply actually was exactly how Lydiard had explained to me; except, you know how Sev talks, always sounding mad with his deep low voice... He said, "For speed training, to me, is like running 400m all-out... I don't care if you take a whole day to recover till the next one but that's SPEED." Sure, it's an anaerobic affair; but your aim is not to develop your anaerobic capacity (as Lydiard would term it) as much as possible; your aim is to run as fast as possible. You cannot possibly run as fast as possible if you're doing 400m repeats 20 times, or doing them with only 100m recovery in between, can you?

        Now as for speed development, remember, Lydiard used to have his marathon runners to compete in the 100m dash at the club meet. I agree with you, I think 800 would be a great development event for young athletes even for those who are aspired to become a marathon runner. Remember, Naoko Takahashi was a 1500m runner when she was young!
    • The Light
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 4:17AM - in reply to Um.......
      • The Light
      • I would ask why some anti-Lydiardites over-react to something which was not said? Exactly what truth was over-stretched here?

        I didn't attend the clinic in Victoria, but it's entirely plausible that Jon Brown, speaking at a Lydiard clinic, would characterize lots of slow plodding, as a Lydiard-type build-up schedule. I read nowhere that Lydiard invented it. If you want to talk about a seemingly slow plodding and boring conditioning at a Lydiard clinic, what term is better than a "Lydiard-type build-up"?

        Lydiard didn't invent any pieces of the puzzle. He just placed the pieces in one certain order, and said that by doing that, you'll peak when it's important. His invention is creating one order out of the chaos.

        Regards,

        Um....... wrote:
        Gandy was NOT "Seb's coach". He helped to coach. His dad was his coach.
        And Lydyard didn't invent what Jon brown referred to in your quote or the other guys (west coast).
        Why do Lydiardites always want to stretch the truth into their little mould.

        Nobby wrote:

        Wetcast, I'm surprised you didn't mention--when Jon Brown spoke at our clinic in Victoria, he said when his coach, George Gandy (who was at one time Seb Coe's coach, by the way) put him on Lydiard-type build-up schedule, he didn't like it at first; it was slow plodding and boring and... But after 3 months of that, and then threw some hill training for a month; then 2 track workouts and he PRed every distance from 1500 up to a marathon (he was already a 13:30 guy by the way). He said it straight; "People just don't seem to understand--it seems to go against the logic; you're running slower but that makes you faster..." Oh, well; after all, he was ONLY 4th in the Olympics, twice! Didn't even win a medal...
    • Wetcoast
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 9:43AM - in reply to The Light
      • Wetcoast
      • Jon Brown said that, but I highly doubt it was THAT slow or plodding, but rather slower than throwing down a whole bunch of random paced runs like tempos, intervals, time trials and timed fast runs with creative names attached.

        It may have been boring in that there was a lot of steady miles without strain. Enough of that and I could it getting boring.

        Rod Dixon said the same thing as Jon Brown. He said, "consistancy is the key, stick with the program, don't change in the middle of it looking for a quick solution. At times the conditioning phase will seem boring and you will question why you are even doing this to yourself, but it's the base conditioning steady miles that will bring you across the line faster".

        Jon Brown said that after 3 months....

        Rod Dixon said 12 - 16 weeks is best...

        2:09 & 2:08 marathoners, respectively.
    • kaching
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 12:43PM - in reply to Wetcoast
      • kaching
      • i like consistency but also like randomness. One without the other is a sure fire way to lose performance capacity, the same as any other balance disrupting behavior that occurs over the tong term.

        Lydiard created what i see as a continuum. It extends from the average person who cannot run 20 minutes continuously through to the elite marathoner. Wherever your starting point is thats where the Lydiard schedule begins. For an elite Kenyan there may be less of the aerobic base building and more of the strengthening aspects of the program. For a larger westerner the base building is probably the lacking component. For almost everyone in the Western world the base is missing. I don't see this as just the base for distance running. I see this as the base for life. It extends from our lifestyle where we sit down a lot of the time (school, couch, study desk, office desk, all forms of transport). Cultures which have retained some physical elements of their tradition tend to have a higher base level of what can be called life fitness. Africans are amongst the most fortunate of these.

        Where do you begin on the Lydiard Schedule. Can you cover 22 miles weekly, just short of strain, just short. Can you run 8 miles every morning in addition to normal training, week in week out for 3 months? Or do you find it more difficult to timetrial? Where is the lack?

        Since this is Daniels v Lydiard i will throw my two cents in. Daniels is very very good. An outstanding contribution to British and further distance running. But also a trap that many fall into. As one famous coach once said "Interval training is a very powerful tool and you can go a long way with it quickly, but it is also very dangerous." Lydiard was an inspired intuitive genius. He was also a reformer. He re-formed distance running by a new methodology. Brilliant. The problem is it is too simple for most people to accept. Build your pyramid the periodisers would say. Well Lydiard was also a periodiser. Periodisation is the breaking up of the training period into separate periods each containing a different emphasis. Lydiard says base train then hills then intervals then sharpen to peak. Each is a distinct period with a different fundamental purpose. Each one is built on the strength of the previous level.

        The problem i have with Lydiard is that i see his bias towards the marathon. Whilst this is of no real problem it does lend to over distance. I agree with over distance as a general rule but not at the expense of the overall balance of qualities required for shorter events. I guess i'm really concerned with the 800m and the balance for that event is far different than that of the marathon and even the 1500m. To criticise Lydiard over 800m running is quite ludicrous and every time i have had an issue with an aspect of his schedule, i'm later proven wrong, often after finding a new way to think about something, Arthur's way.

        Seriously, get drunk or stoned or whatever you do for relaxed concentration and focus, then read Lydiard's Schedule and his writings over slowly with much breathing and no rushing. There are layers in his thinking that are worth exploring. I've had some fun with it.
    • Wetcoast
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 12:48PM - in reply to kaching
      • Wetcoast
      • Kaching,

        Nice post.

        Brilliant really.

        I love the line and will now steal it from you and use in perpetuity (when nesessary), 'too simple for people to accept'.

        Beautiful.
    • Hotlanta Master
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 1:32PM - in reply to kaching
      • Hotlanta Master
      • Well said kaching!

        I think a lot of people (not necessarily you!) construe Lydiard's many references to "marathon training" in his writings as a special interest in the marathon event. There is a semantic issue here. "Marathon training" simply refers to training like marathoners do - covering many miles of distance work. When Arthur started out as a runner, most "track athletes" trained exclusively on the track. None of this up and down the roads and across the countryside business. "Marathon runners," at that time were a completely different breed and regarded by many as more than a little nuts. They did run the roads, etc. Arthur noticed that when he started training for marathons, his track races started improving dramatically and this was his first clue that building aerobic fitness in this way was of primary importance. He referred to the high mileage base work as "marathon training," because that was an apt description at that time. Now, we take it for granted that distance runners run high mileage at an aerobic pace, but back then, it was not common. During his coaching career, Lydiard mainly coached track athletes, with undeniably good success. Most of his schedules are designed for the track. His athletes set numerous world records on the track. Plainly, his system worked for certain 800 meter runners, if not for all. Snell's 1:43 800 on a grass track way, way back when certainly says something, not to mention his 2 Olympic golds at the distance.
    • Dr No
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 2:23PM - in reply to Hotlanta Master
      • Dr No
      • So now we are down to 1:43 on that disputed grass track. It is not true that most track atheletes trained on the track before Lydiard.
    • Kim Stevenson
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 2:44PM - in reply to Dr No
      • Kim Stevenson
      • That time was actually 1:44.3. The "disputed" Grass track was surveyed as a re-check for accuracy before there was a submission to IAAF for a world record.
        Grass Tracks, if prepared well can be excellent.
        I survey and mark a grass rrack every year (done so for 29 years) for a High School Annual Athletic (Track & Field Sports). I have permanent marker pegs which I am amazed are still very accurate.
        Don't forget that the same grass Track that Snell ran 3:54.4 for a mile had a 3:53.8 run on it 4 years later (Jurgen May)with Kip Keino second.
    • HRE
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 4:30PM - in reply to Dr No
      • HRE
      • If you get something like Fred Wilt's "How They Train," you'll see that there was a clear difference in the way track guys trained and the way marathoners trained. Even someone like Zatopek, who did the sort of mileage that marathoners did, or even more, did not do much in the line of steady distance work. It was all intervals, often in massive numbers. Even when he did double sessions, both sessions were usually intervals. Kuts, Bolitnikov, Pirie, Schul, Truex, all very different from Halberg, Baillie, Snell and from what would come later with Shorter, Bjorklund, Bedford, etc.
        The "Sunday" long run, which everyone and at least five of their cousins does now, was rare if not nonexistent for track runners prior to Lydiard.
        Who are you thinking of?
    • HRE
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 4:31PM - in reply to Dr No
      • HRE
      • If you get something like Fred Wilt's "How They Train," you'll see that there was a clear difference in the way track guys trained and the way marathoners trained. Even someone like Zatopek, who did the sort of mileage that marathoners did, or even more, did not do much in the line of steady distance work. It was all intervals, often in massive numbers. Even when he did double sessions, both sessions were usually intervals. Kuts, Bolitnikov, Pirie, Schul, Truex, all very different from Halberg, Baillie, Snell and from what would come later with Shorter, Bjorklund, Bedford, etc.
        The "Sunday" long run, which everyone and at least five of their cousins does now, was rare if not nonexistent for track runners prior to Lydiard.
        Who are you thinking of?
    • HRE
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 4:31PM - in reply to Dr No
      • HRE
      • If you get something like Fred Wilt's "How They Train," you'll see that there was a clear difference in the way track guys trained and the way marathoners trained. Even someone like Zatopek, who did the sort of mileage that marathoners did, or even more, did not do much in the line of steady distance work. It was all intervals, often in massive numbers. Even when he did double sessions, both sessions were usually intervals. Kuts, Bolitnikov, Pirie, Schul, Truex, all very different from Halberg, Baillie, Snell and from what would come later with Shorter, Bjorklund, Bedford, etc.
        The "Sunday" long run, which everyone and at least five of their cousins does now, was rare if not nonexistent for track runners prior to Lydiard.
        Who are you thinking of?
    • HRE
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 4:32PM - in reply to Dr No
      • HRE
      • If you get something like Fred Wilt's "How They Train," you'll see that there was a clear difference in the way track guys trained and the way marathoners trained. Even someone like Zatopek, who did the sort of mileage that marathoners did, or even more, did not do much in the line of steady distance work. It was all intervals, often in massive numbers. Even when he did double sessions, both sessions were usually intervals. Kuts, Bolitnikov, Pirie, Schul, Truex, all very different from Halberg, Baillie, Snell and from what would come later with Shorter, Bjorklund, Bedford, etc.
        The "Sunday" long run, which everyone and at least five of their cousins does now, was rare if not nonexistent for track runners prior to Lydiard.
        Who are you thinking of?
    • HRE
      • RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS? 12/4/2007 4:32PM - in reply to Dr No
      • HRE
      • If you get something like Fred Wilt's "How They Train," you'll see that there was a clear difference in the way track guys trained and the way marathoners trained. Even someone like Zatopek, who did the sort of mileage that marathoners did, or even more, did not do much in the line of steady distance work. It was all intervals, often in massive numbers. Even when he did double sessions, both sessions were usually intervals. Kuts, Bolitnikov, Pirie, Schul, Truex, all very different from Halberg, Baillie, Snell and from what would come later with Shorter, Bjorklund, Bedford, etc.
        The "Sunday" long run, which everyone and at least five of their cousins does now, was rare if not nonexistent for track runners prior to Lydiard.
        Who are you thinking of?