ddt is correct--almost any physiologist will tell you that aerobic/mileage oriented training is wrong, and that only event-specific work has proven results.
At the same time, you must realize that the grand field of western physiology has yielded only a couple of medals in the last 50 years. If physiologists know best, why aren't any Americans winning? Meanwhile, the Africans continue to run twice a day, with one at a strong aerobic effort, and continue to clean our clocks year in and year out.
figdis fiddis wrote:
ddt is correct--almost any physiologist will tell you that aerobic/mileage oriented training is wrong, and that only event-specific work has proven results.
At the same time, you must realize that the grand field of western physiology has yielded only a couple of medals in the last 50 years. If physiologists know best, why aren't any Americans winning? Meanwhile, the Africans continue to run twice a day, with one at a strong aerobic effort, and continue to clean our clocks year in and year out.
On the contrary, you can have superior knowledge (sports phys) but attempt to prove it with inferior experiments (western athletes). That does not mean the knowledge is less effective. Has anyone tried to train Kenyan athletes with the exercise phys methods? On the contrary, how many Western athletes have tried Kenyan methods? Until both questions have been answered these are meaningless arguments at best.
Without experiments you can't be certain that your knowledge is knowledge or superstition.
some obvious similarities wrote:
figdis fiddis wrote:ddt is correct--almost any physiologist will tell you that aerobic/mileage oriented training is wrong, and that only event-specific work has proven results.
At the same time, you must realize that the grand field of western physiology has yielded only a couple of medals in the last 50 years. If physiologists know best, why aren't any Americans winning? Meanwhile, the Africans continue to run twice a day, with one at a strong aerobic effort, and continue to clean our clocks year in and year out.
On the contrary, you can have superior knowledge (sports phys) but attempt to prove it with inferior experiments (western athletes). That does not mean the knowledge is less effective. Has anyone tried to train Kenyan athletes with the exercise phys methods? On the contrary, how many Western athletes have tried Kenyan methods? Until both questions have been answered these are meaningless arguments at best.
I will say this, and in my opinion, it's indisputable - Lydiard established a very solid structure for training programs. Can it be said that his training methods are the best that exist today? I'd say that they likely are not, but whatever may be the best today, it's probably just a tweaking of what Lydiard did a half-century ago.
Finally one post that i agree. What really matters if the US population is just 310,186,000 among estimate 6,867,200,000 world population, since long ago they don´t get one gold medal in the olympics in distance events and it´s they way to judge the american running scene ruled by physiologists.
Chris Solinsky is from Africa. Right ? It really doesn´t matter that he does intervals during all phases of the season - he is Lydiard.
I can name some others with good performances Webb from Romania, Ritz from Poland. They are europeans but they train on the Lydiard method and they are advised by Japanese coaches and african physiologists.
Bernard Lagat, i can´t consider. He changes to US citizenship but he is coached by Li another one that changed citizenship but Li does Lydiard straight.
They do aerobic runs straightly, they don´t do no anaerobic intervals. It´s the african method that makes so many champions. Aerobic easy and hard everyday based on Lydiard. Rudisha is another icon of the Lydiard training. Coached by an american physiologist the Brother O´Col. that made so many huge performances within the Lydiard method. I can name others, hundreds of top africans , but they miss the intervals most the seasson. few of them they miss the Lydiard pre-competitive anaerobic block...excuse me the Lydiard pre-competitive AEROBIC block.
Nope, wrong. Wishful thinking, at best. Probably just mere delusion, though.FAIL
anti anton wrote:
Progress=author author=ddt=antonio
Seriously you can't think of any better thing to do than coming up with guzzillion different code names to dis Lydiard? Get a life, Antonio.
More like a combination of what Lydiard and others came up with in the past half a century, just like what Lydiard came up with was a combination of what others had established with before him.
Wayne B wrote:
I will say this, and in my opinion, it's indisputable - Lydiard established a very solid structure for training programs. Can it be said that his training methods are the best that exist today? I'd say that they likely are not, but whatever may be the best today, it's probably just a tweaking of what Lydiard did a half-century ago.
Yes I agree, author author and ddt is Antonio, but his last post as ddt raises an important point. Lydiard did have a paranoia about the idea that fast running in base training damaged aerobic conditioning, which is not true.
I believe Lydiard had his athletes doing sprints, bounding, hill springing, and time trials during the "base" phase. Maybe they didn't do a whole lot of 10x400 workouts, but I think it's a misconception that none of his athletes did anything faster than their "best aerobic effort". Could he have included more fast running? Probably. Is Lydiard the only way to achieve success in mid to long distance? Nope. But it's a good way, especially if you pay more attention to the spirit of what he was trying to do, rather than getting bogged down in the details of some training schedule in a book.
(Just a general reply, not directed at you wellnow) Also I agree Antonio or whoever is incredibly annoying. Possibly the worst poster on this board.
figdis fiddis wrote:
ddt is correct--almost any physiologist will tell you that aerobic/mileage oriented training is wrong, and that only event-specific work has proven results.
At the same time, you must realize that the grand field of western physiology has yielded only a couple of medals in the last 50 years. If physiologists know best, why aren't any Americans winning? Meanwhile, the Africans continue to run twice a day, with one at a strong aerobic effort, and continue to clean our clocks year in and year out.
Africans train harder. Non Africans will just have to train harder also won't they?
Didn't Wejo essentially do "pure Lydiard?" Seems like he got the best bang for his buck.
edumacator wrote:
I believe Lydiard had his athletes doing sprints, bounding, hill springing, and time trials during the "base" phase. Maybe they didn't do a whole lot of 10x400 workouts, but I think it's a misconception that none of his athletes did anything faster than their "best aerobic effort". Could he have included more fast running? Probably. Is Lydiard the only way to achieve success in mid to long distance? Nope.
You forget to say that to run is common to every training method and so the Lydiard one.
The Lydiard athelets and the athletes of the other methods, they all run. One point in common. They do miles, they run short bouts of sprints, hills etc. They all train by doing runs. Common aspects. Similar points.
It happens that with the except of weight training what is different in Lydiard is just what makes Lydiard weaker. The irrational season periodisation that goes against all good sport biology and sport physiology and training methodology. The absence of long periods without interval training while the interval training is the most effective aerobic training format. The wrong Lydiard concept that the aerobic condition does quite unlimited improvement, the wrong concept that the anaerobic condition can damage the aerobic condition. The absence of training individualisation and poor training discrimination relate to different distance events during the introductory aerobic block mainly. The overate use of long runs in certain contexts. The unproved use of long runs to promote fast fibres.
Sagarin wrote:
Didn't Wejo essentially do "pure Lydiard?" Seems like he got the best bang for his buck.
No, Lydiard did not train Wejo.
wellnow wrote:
Yes I agree, author author and ddt is Antonio, but his last post as ddt raises an important point. Lydiard did have a paranoia about the idea that fast running in base training damaged aerobic conditioning, which is not true.
As you use to post. Your first sentence is wrong.
But your second sentence is the all time best one comment that i read about the Lydiard training. Im suprised how in one sentence can resume all the Lydiard critic.
But why so ? Why the afraid (paranoia) to include fast running and intervals namely during long introductory period ?
Because he thinks that the intervals are damage to the aerobic condition. He also thinks that some 6-8 weeks block of intervals it´s the best solution to an huge peak condition and that after that 6-8 week period the shape condition goes down. Lydiard trusts in past outdate east-german wrong physiology that follows the wrong season periodisation, the one of Matveiev.
Besides everybody knows that mileage and aerobic training volume is a good thing. But to think that aerobic power intervals and some anaerobic intervals damage the aerobic condition is also wrong. The only constrain to do fast training is the frequency. The runs in between fast workouts shall be moderate to promote overcompensation and recovery.
Antonio, your writing style is very familiar, why post under hundreds of different names? I have kept the name wellnow for more than 4 years, you should post under one name too.
All I can say in response to the question about the balance of speed/endurance is that we have to concentrate as much on technique as we do on effort, and that way we can avoid training too hard.
The lydiard philosophy remains a huge influence after his death because he inspired self belief, that you are as good as your training, and you can always improve the training.
It is Antonio that is not good. He understand not truth that is comparative long run periodization take 3 Olympic medal that is unshakable fact. No one coach coach neighbor kids that is came to him not recruit he never liked he never did. Long run done slow that is aerobic develop capilarization mitochondoria synthesize cell membrane liver function that is photosynthesis create important nature food chain first thing everybody on earth need. I'm right and you are rong because my name s and you are t and I'm before you that is fact. Big earthquake in new zealand and nobody died and that is because Lydiard is from new zealand and that is fact. If earthquake in California or Portugal many people die and it is the aftermath of jogging program Lydiard started as the first in the world history that made people strong and true and they were strong that is fact. Antonio never save anybody but make confuse his English is not English but false English and he conceptualize this misconception that is not truth. Truth came from enw zealand and went to mexico and Venezuela and finland and Viren and Vasala and Vaatinen all become champion and that is fact. Portugal win lopez gold medal at los angelis but mamede failed and that is because Antonio not knowing truth. Lopez did lyidard and that is why japan's Nakamura said so that is truth. Lopez travel to ethiopia and spread gospel of Lydiard and they run fast and that is fact.
ddt wrote:
But why so ? Why the afraid (paranoia)
Funny to hear the biggest paranoia talking about paranoia. What do you call this fear of getting to be known who you are? Oh, yes, it\'s \"Cabral\"! Yes, why is that? Why use so many different names? Why are you so afraid that people get to know who you are from your posts?
[quote]Wetcoast wrote:
There are none - it doesn't detract from the fact that Lydiard coach and advised many great performances and his method continues to provide many pbs, regional, national and international performances in endurance sports. However, it does indicate that every human is an experiment of one. Therefore not everyone gets the same exact weekly schedule.
[quote]
This is what is the way to new fizziology.
Good try but wrong. Training individualization is the target need not the result.
Training individualization is build up after to realize that every runner is different and then each one requires different training need eventually in what is each own idissiocrasy. Training individualization isn´t to schedule the same training in every human and see the consequence, that everyhuman is an experiment of one.
However be as you say, it doesn´t matter, because what you say is not Lydiard training. It´s your own imagination.
Imagine when Lydiard did the same training to Snell and Davies but he meanwhile he thinks "every human is an experiment of one, therefore not everyone gets the same exact weekly schedule.". No way. Lydiard simply thinks that the same training benefits every runner in the same extend.
You post about holism as training understand, but don´t you know that one strong idea from the holism is individualization in every human aspect ?
wellnow wrote:
The lydiard philosophy remains a huge influence after his death because he inspired self belief, that you are as good as your training, and you can always improve the training.
No, the Lydiard philosophy remains a huge influence because it worked. Period. All the self-belief in the world won't inspire anything if it doesn't work.
Lydiard took a bunch of nobodies from basically the local area and made them into world beaters. That's why he is remembered. His training produced results.
Meanwhile, the armchair exercise physiologists here endlessly prattle on about "the importance of neuromuscular coordination" while producing nothing.
Lydiard's guys would shake their heads and laugh. Then they'd go out for another ten mile run. Then they'd lap you.
I have no idea what you wrote. Sorry! But you are making no sense with the sentence structure. Not trying to be mean. Please get your message translated better. Seriously.
Meanwhile what I think I read in it is you think that I imagine that Lydiard said that each person is an experiment of one, but he gave the same training to everyone.
IF this is so, you are not quite right.
Forget the name Lydiard for a moment.
The best way to get a runner to be able to run long(er) distances at faster paces than they previously could is to get them to run long(er) distances than before or as long as before, but more of it and at better paces. Sounds sort of vague. Not precise. But this is true - the runner needs constant pressure on the heart etc during a run - this needs to happen with recovery, for many weeks, the more the better, but of course at some point the athlete needs to move on to the next phase, because of. A.) Diminishing returns. B.) Boredom for some. C.) Life schedule and racing schedule.
So the general aerobic phase is very similar/same for everyone who wants to run well from 800m to the marathon and every distance in between. HOWEVER, there maybe some who can tolerate longer distances better, physically or mentally, some who react faster than others to stimulus....etc. So there can be different weekly schedules handed out to different people trying to achieve the same result as each other. This is called coaching, which is slightly different than being the 'discoverer of a method' two conversations.
When you get into the anaerobic phase things can change to a greater degree for individuals. Again, they are attempting to achieve the same result: 'get faster' at their distance(s), probably make a peak happen and race well.
This has been proven so many times over 50 years that it does not need to be discussed - in terms of it actually working or not. The discussion should really center around one person learning it from another person OR possibly finding ways to improve delivery of the training schedule and the finer details of it for each individual. Again this is the art of coaching.
Again, you can refute it all you want, but that is like refuting whether Pele was a brilliant soccer player or not or Jordan was a brilliant basketball player or not or Gretzky was a brilliant hockey player or not, or Tiger Woods was (and still could be) a brilliant golfer or not or that James T. Kirk was a dramatic actor's character on a popular television show in the early 1970s. Or how about arguing whether Bill Clinton was a wonderful speech deliverer, or Ghandi was a passivist or John Lennon wrote great songs or that cows can be milked, Sir Richard Branson sells space travel (which he does) or that Australians have a different English accent than Canadians or that Chinese have around a billion population in China or North America includes Canada, America and Mexico or that Hurricanes always come in September to Florida and area....stuff that can't be argued as to whether they are true.
....stop denying whether or not Lydiard was a great coach, discoverer of a great method or that he had success. This petty, nitpicking, immature and downright ignorant questioning of details shows some level of ....well...stupidity on your part.
Seriously get over Lydiard. It must be an indication of other issues you have.
Now if this answers your illegible question, then we have success. Feel free to ask questions about Lydiard and learn from those who answer. Learning is a good thing.