Correction:
DO run even splits. In that example....oops.
Correction:
DO run even splits. In that example....oops.
joiwef wrote:
cabana wrote:7/8 effort? What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Hmmm, lets think this one over. 100% effort would be 8/8, so 7/8 would be 87.5%. We've all heard of doing things at 90% effort instead of 100%, this is pretty close to that. Just because its a strange fraction to use doesn't mean it is a confusing concept.
Agreed. I just took that to mean 85-90% effort.
Well, for a person that runs 5 minute pace for a 10k it means run about 5:40 pace for a 10k. Cover 7/8th the distance in the same time.
cabana wrote:
7/8 effort? What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Wet Coast wrote:
Lydiard was the pioneer. It is really modern language that is messing up the understanding of good training principles. People sweating the minutia and not grasping the holism.
Sweating the minutia? One schedule advocating 2 time trials per week and another continually warning against efforts exceeding anaerobic threshold efforts is a fairly significant different in ideas, wouldn't you agree?
Actually I can't imagine how they could be any different (and I am referring to my earlier interpretation of the schedules, prior to the clarification of what Lydiard "really" meant by a time trial).
Feel free to now let me know what you "really" meant....
Yeah, you may be sweating over details despite the fact that a few former elite (not me) athletes who have trained by and coach by the Lydiard method tried to explain to you what Time Trial in the base phase means versus Time Trial in the specific coordination phase is.
Funny, I would think that the running community would adhere to the innovator and not the other way around.
Saying that, let me suggest that if you are planning to run or to coach someone by the Lydiard method and hope to create a peak, just on time, you may want to FOR SURE get an understanding of the method before undertaking it. Lydiard Level courses, 1, 2 & 3 are available to you - no problem - it is well worth the investment.
Then you know what? You will be more informed than you may be able to imagine - Lorraine, Nobby and company REALLY know their stuff.
Alternatively, you can join the Lydiard Foundation by getting a membership and you can converse directly with their advisory panel.
or join the Arthur Lydiard facebook group, we'd love to have you.
All the best,
Wetcoast.
Translating Lydiard to english is such a difficult a task that a Japanese guy had to establish a foundation to do it.
Do you like it ?
Merry xmas and an happy new year.
We will read the same Lydiard fanatics to come on this board with the trap speach of his beloved coach.
Lydiard absurd that´s what it is. Lydiard is dead. No way to make him alive. It´s the true. All the rest is speculation.
system of down wrote:
Do you like it ?
Merry xmas and an happy new year.
We will read the same Lydiard fanatics to come on this board with the trap speach of his beloved coach.
Lydiard absurd that´s what it is. Lydiard is dead. No way to make him alive. It´s the true. All the rest is speculation.
This guy is absolutely right. You guys need to quit paying such attention to what Lydiard thought about this or that. Much like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Jesus Christ, Arthur Lydiard is dead, rendering everything he did or said completely irrelevent. And one need look no farther than Shakespeare to realize that any word that we use today has had the exact same meaning since the beginning of the time, so if Lydiard did not mean the same thing by "time trial" as I mean when I say it right now, it's because he was a fool who didn't know how to communicate or coach. You Lydiard fans truly are a sad, misinformed bunch.
Well even if The Bard was alive today and therefore relevant these guys wouldn't understand him anyway...a playright and poet, doesn't sound very manly does it?
These are the type of buffoons who through basic ignorance changed the meaning of:
'What a piece of work a man is.' as a statement of wonder about he human being by The Bard himself to:
"Yer a piece of work'. An insult by your basic modern ingrate.
Buffoonery the Lydiard threads are rife with it. Hence the need for the foundation and the courses and the facebook group.
Which are there to perpetuate and protect the definition of the method as created and used to great success for over 50 years by Arthur Lydiard.
Your irony is made with demaghogy
Lydiard. To coach he knew. But for what i did watch on youtube he had some vocal problem to speak was not his best talent.
Anyhow i never said that Lydiard didn´t knew how to coach. But he was not as perfect as some pretend. Their books are covered with a few training mistakes, some contradition, and also some methodology misunderstand. But it´s not this point that they want to change.
Your irony is made with demagogy
Lydiard. To coach he knew. But for what i did watch on youtube he had some vocal problem to speak was not his best talent.
Anyhow i don´t said that Lydiard didn´t knew to coach. But he was not as perfect as some pretend. His training and the books are covered with a few training mistakes, some contradiction, and also some methodology misunderstand. But it´s not this point that they want to change.
Worst than what´s Lydiard training is what is wrong or outdate are the pretentious minds that want to change what he wrote to the modernity. They name it interpretation, as the public knowledge only can be submit to private interpretation.
Jesus Christ as far as i know didn´t wrote no books or a single sentence. There the many interpretations, read, many religions. Shakespeare did wrote in old english, but a trustful Shakespeare´s today writing only change the old english to modern english, and about Lydiard i don´t know no english word he wrote that is outdate in english or every mathematic calculation. Might be that tempo run is not tempo run actually, might be intervals are not intervals and might be that 4/58 is not 0.8.
Merry xmas and an happy new year.
well. wrote:
What we all were waiting for: the lousy English speaker!
Excuse me for the time you wait for me. You see i´m not as fast as the Lydiard fans and i write in poor english.
system of down wrote:
Your irony is made with demaghogy
Lydiard. To coach he knew. But for what i did watch on youtube he had some vocal problem to speak was not his best talent.
Anyhow i never said that Lydiard didn´t knew how to coach. But he was not as perfect as some pretend. Their books are covered with a few training mistakes, some contradition, and also some methodology misunderstand. But it´s not this point that they want to change.
Your irony is made with demagogy
Lydiard. To coach he knew. But for what i did watch on youtube he had some vocal problem to speak was not his best talent.
Anyhow i don´t said that Lydiard didn´t knew to coach. But he was not as perfect as some pretend. His training and the books are covered with a few training mistakes, some contradiction, and also some methodology misunderstand. But it´s not this point that they want to change.
Worst than what´s Lydiard training is what is wrong or outdate are the pretentious minds that want to change what he wrote to the modernity. They name it interpretation, as the public knowledge only can be submit to private interpretation.
Jesus Christ as far as i know didn´t wrote no books or a single sentence. There the many interpretations, read, many religions. Shakespeare did wrote in old english, but a trustful Shakespeare´s today writing only change the old english to modern english, and about Lydiard i don´t know no english word he wrote that is outdate in english or every mathematic calculation. Might be that tempo run is not tempo run actually, might be intervals are not intervals and might be that 4/58 is not 0.8.
Merry xmas and an happy new year.
Wow, this guy really is up there together with other LR wackos like the430miler. A real masterpiece.
"Oh weird cyber-world! That has such people in it!"
-Shakespare, reading letsrun.
Time trials don't have to be intense.Here's a recent Runners World (UK) article in 2007 about time trial training.http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/time-trial-training/3189.htmlSome quotes:"The first thing to understand about the time trial is that it’s not a race, or doesn’t have to be,""As Helgerud suggests, you don’t need to run time trials flat-out all the time.""Instead, ... run the trial as a tempo run – i.e. run it at half-marathon pace and see how much easier it becomes as the weeks go by."Even as recently as 2007, according to Runners World, time trials do not have to be fast and intense. You have a time, over a known distance, but the intensity doesn't always have to be race pace, or near race pace.
TheJerk wrote:
Sweating the minutia? One schedule advocating 2 time trials per week and another continually warning against efforts exceeding anaerobic threshold efforts is a fairly significant different in ideas, wouldn't you agree?
Actually I can't imagine how they could be any different (and I am referring to my earlier interpretation of the schedules, prior to the clarification of what Lydiard "really" meant by a time trial).
Feel free to now let me know what you "really" meant....
Not too far from something Lydiard would have and probably did suggest.
It's a shame that Lydiard never wrote any books, or travelled the world speaking to groups, or otherwise told anyone else how he trained, and the principles behind his training. All the training secrets went with him to the grave.I'm just wondering -- is it even possible today, to ask a question about his training, that wasn't already asked and answered before he died? Is there even one training mystery left?
system of down wrote:
Keith tries an impossible task. Lydiard training is simply what Lydiard did and what Lydiard wrote. How does he knows. how do we know, how do i know that Lydiard would agree ? No one knows.
Since Lydiard is dead the revision of Lydiard training, the modern interpretation of Lydiard is something silly and inconsequent. Basically it’s training change, not modern interpretation.
Most here would also say today that a 10k race (and also 5k) are aerobic efforts, anyway.
Lydiard did not use a "1 hour race pace" as the aerobic/anaerobic boundary, when he wrote these books. When Lydiard described anaerobic training, it was usually in terms of blood ph.
So a 10k time trial, say at 10 seconds/mile slower than race pace is not very anaerobic, and not the sort of training Lydiard cautioned against.
Forget Lydiard, it´s outdated.
There´s no need to collect miles, if you are not a marathoner.
Yes. Lydiard training is old, but it is not the oldest.
We should also forget Paavo Nuurmi, Mihaly Igloi, Emil Zatopek, Percy Cerutty, Waldemar Gerschler, Hans Reindel, and Gosta Holmer, just to name a few others as old, or older.
Interval training, is older than "aerobic" high mileage, and developing your peak, as is fartlek.
This all leaves me to wonder, what should we be doing today, if so many training concepts are past the sell-by date?
Who can take the place of Lydiard today?
joiwef wrote:
cabana wrote:7/8 effort? What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Hmmm, lets think this one over. 100% effort would be 8/8, so 7/8 would be 87.5%. We've all heard of doing things at 90% effort instead of 100%, this is pretty close to that. Just because its a strange fraction to use doesn't mean it is a confusing concept.
I know you're trying to be helpful, but that is obviously not right.
That's why I asked the question.