Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

The book on Ebay syndrome. Who cares?

Just because Running to the Top is not winning a popularity contest, doesn't mean the material isn't valuable. Personally, I paid $30US for it and waited nearly three weeks for it to be sent from New Zealand. Worth every penny.

The Coe system obviously works very well for distances under 5k. In Sebastians case he wasn't just doing one fast session a week- you don't have to follow the template exactly, you should modify it according to your goals and the amount of work you're willing to put in.

Skuj wrote:

I KNOW THAT FOOKING BOOK LIKE THE BACK OF MY HAND!!!

The Coe-Martin approach is like a gradually shifting amoeba. Multipace training is done year round. Yes, there are volume peaks and general intensity peaks, and emphasis shifts very gradually. But it is not distinct phases like Lydiard. The Coe-Martinites list various mesocycles, but they exist only as examples of emphasis. The amoeba has very definitely moved about.

Hello again and thank you for your thoughtful reply. Multi-tier training and periodization are not mutually exclusive as you would seem to think. Perhaps the Coe/Martin periodization philosophy differs from Lydiard's, but it is still periodization. The two philosophies may differ in their emphases, but they also have much in common including their support for periodization. Thanks again and keep reading. You can learn much from these outstanding coaches and scientists. Good luck with your season.

For distances under 5K, there is a different book to look at: "Winning Running," by Peter Coe, which is about training for 800/1500 specifically.And, yes you do concentrate on intervals at 400-1500 pace if you're training for a fast mile. The following schedule is part of Sebastian's training and is part of Peter Coe's Level 3 coaching presentation ("Track Coach #157, p.5007):

Sun 4X1500 or 3X2000 (5K pace, 95% VO2max)

Mon Fartlek (pace 60%, 100% VO2max)

Tue 8X800 (3K pace, 100% VO@max)

Wed Road run (80% VO2max)

Thu 16X200 (1500 pace, 110% VO2max)

Fri rest or fartlek

Sat race or rest

Sun 4-6 X 400 (800 pace, 120%VO2max)

Mon Road run (80% VO2max)

Tue 2X300 + 4X200 + 4X100 (400 pace)

Wed Fartlek (pace 60%, 100% VO2max)

Thu Time trial or race

Fri 100m repetitions

Sat rest

I've used a similiar schedule (reduced volume) for high school runners during track season, and have also had a couple of masters milers do well with it. Note, this is track season, not base. There is a transition phase consisting of long intervals like 16-12-8-4 breakdowns and 100m sessions with short rest (i.e., wind sprints) leading into this.

You are not reading my responses carefully. I do not say that periodization and multi-tier training are mutually exclusive. Dammit.

Skuj wrote:

You are not reading my responses carefully. I do not say that periodization and multi-tier training are mutually exclusive. Dammit.

Good to hear from you again. My comments were directed to your assertion that Coe/Martin do not use distinct phases that change much from previous phases. Of course, the same can be said for Lydiard and just about any other training system. There is a core philosophy involved in each system. The Coe/Martin periodization model is as valid as Lydiard's. I hope I have helped you gain a better understanding of training philosophies. All the best to you.

I think Coe-Martin emphasised paces while Lydiard emphasised RACING. Train to race, not to pace.

Alan

The Professor wrote:

Skuj wrote:

You are not reading my responses carefully. I do not say that periodization and multi-tier training are mutually exclusive. Dammit.

Good to hear from you again. My comments were directed to your assertion that Coe/Martin do not use distinct phases that change much from previous phases. Of course, the same can be said for Lydiard and just about any other training system. There is a core philosophy involved in each system. The Coe/Martin periodization model is as valid as Lydiard's. I hope I have helped you gain a better understanding of training philosophies. All the best to you.

its ok skuj. we understand.

z

I think if you want to peak for a specific race every 6 months or so following a Lydiard style would be best, but if you want to race year round then Coe/Martin might be better.

Alan

RFXCrunner wrote:

Coe-Martin sounds like a good idea for the longer distances, but what about distances under 5k? It seems like there isn't any point where there is an overall specific emphasis on shorter distances. At the end of a season, when you're trying to peak for a really fast mile, for example, wouldn't you do shorter, faster intervals more than once a week? Or does the C-M program have more specificity in peaking phases?

Didn't they say if speed is the goal, then you shouldn't ever stray too far from it... I think the C-M program would be better for shorter distances mainly because your trying to focus on speed and speed endurance.

Always Lydiard, all the time.

Ok?

No more questions pal....got that!

Coe Martin if you have a phd.

This is a program I saw of Horwill's on Serpetine.org.uk for the 5k:

Day 1

Aerobic - run half marathon distance fast

Day 2

Aerobic - 3 x 2 miles at 10km speed with 90 secs recovery

Day 3

Anaerobic - 8 x 400m at 1,500m speed with 60 secs rest

Day 4

Aerobic - 4 x 1 mile at 5km speed (target speed) with 60 secs rest

Day 5

Aerobic - 3 x 1,500m at 3km speed with 3 mins rest

Day 6

REST

Day 7

If no race: anaerobic - 8 x 200m at 800m speed with 60 secs rest

Day 8

Aerobic - run 10km very fast

Day 9

Aerobic - run half marathon fast

Day 10

Aerobic - 7 x 800m at 5km speed with 30 secs rest

Day 11

Aerobic - 4 x 1k at 3km speed with 2:30 rest

Day 12 Start the cycle again

Is this every day training or are there rest day in between?

3*2 miles at 10K pace with 90 second recovery?

Why not just run a race everyday?

the recovery on this schedule is such bullshit

maybe if i had epo that schedule is possible

but seriously, those recovery times dont make sense

Horwill's training program would be hard as he11. Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism? Neither (or both). Coaches are creative. Runners are all different, and so are events. People steal some aspects of training from each, mix it together and make it their "own." I'd say, use the idea of an aerobic base, but always be working on all training paces through-out the year. Vo2max, LT, 1500m race pace, you need to touch all gears at least once every ten days all year. The emphasis and quality/quantity of these paces should differ in phases though.

I agree that Horwill has some, er, fantastic ideas that need to be vastly watered down in practice / reality. The Coeseses keep quoting him, then do other things hahaha.

Treadmill, I agree with much that you say here. The "10 day" thing is big with Cabral?

Why not walk and chew gum too? Why not intertwine all systems in a year? Someone please offer proof that anaerobic capacity can be maximized in a matter of a few weeks after "base".

(Professor, please comment in a snotty, poncy, high brow way now.)

Skuj wrote: Someone please offer proof that anaerobic capacity can be maximized in a matter of a few weeks after "base".

(Professor, please comment in a snotty, poncy, high brow way now.)

Thank you for your invitation to continue this enlightening discussion. What you refer to as "base" is also known to many of us as aerobic efficiency. This is typically the largest portion of any mid-distance or distance training regimen. It would be followed by periods emphasizing anaerobic efficiency, aerobic capacity, and anaerobic capacity. Depending on the event focus of the training, the anaerobic capacity period may be as short as 2-3 weeks. This is, of course, referrring to a period of "emphasis" as this type of trainig, as well as the others, is ongoing throughout the macrocycle. I hope you found this informaiton educational. I am happy to help you with this. Continued good wishes to you and yours.

Thank you Prof. You didn't let me down. :)Actually, I very much applaud this most recent post of yours. Are we actually always agreeing, but saying it wrong? Or something?

Skuj wrote:

(Professor, please comment in a snotty, poncy, high brow way now.)

I've found the professor's posts enlightening and informative. And he seems very friendly, too. Thanks, professor.