Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

I see.

And why do you think Ron Clark was able to do what he did?

Psychotherapist wrote:

I see.

And why do you think Ron Clark was able to do what he did?

He started running with Tony Cook and Trevor Vincent who had changed their training around after having talked with Lydiard.

One also has to keep in mind the historical context as well. When Clarke was trying to run 4 minutes as a Junior (1956), he was following on from Landy (Aussie) and Bannister (the influence of Stampfl and sub-4 from 1954 would have been mythical at that point in time). The fact that the OG were in Melbourne that year probably had him training a bit beyond his ability level as well in order to try and make the team in the mile, as his fitness may not have been ready then for longer races - although interval-trained Bruce Kidd did so a few years later (1962) with some success at distance races (although a short career at that).

Clarke didn't have the ability (speed) of a Peter Snell, and this session both fit his (PS) abilities as a middle-distance runner, and the training program (periodized) of Lydiard. In fact PS did sessions of 20x 400m as well. Clarke (as HRE says) changed his training drastically when he came back to the sport later on (the '60's) as a track distance runner (5k/10k), and was influenced by the success of Lydiards athletes and the alternative method (base by aerobic "mileage" running rather than igloi influenced intervals) which guys like Schul (American) were using in 1964.

Thirdly, the session is only one amongst others which has signifance in terms of the training "puzzle". It is also significant to know what other sessions support this particular session (like Coe's 5-pace plan).

That session (10x400m) has been a staple (although could be 8 or even 12 reps as well) for middle-distance runners over the years since Bannister. The difference in development is that later runners (Cram through to El G) did them faster and with less recovery. i.e.

Bannister (58-60sec reps with 2 minute recoveries)- 3.59

Cram (56-58sec reps with 1 minute recovery)- 3.46

El G (54-55sec reps with 30 seconds recovery) - 3.43

But just trying to do these sessions (if possible) without the background support - whether a Lydiard base of some other form of aerobic training - makes the session stand on it's own, which it doesn't.

What the foreign poster (given his poor english, AC perhaps?) is saying, I believe, is that there are other ways to train beyond Lydiard (even if his influence permeates much of modern methodology), and that advances in training likely (and competition schedules influence this as much as anything in a world of professional athletes who make a living from the sport) necessitate a greater intensity (and so specificity) throughout the year. People can adapt to training throughout the year (if controlled properly) and not have to rely on such a regimented periodization as exists in the idealized Lydiard schedule. This doesn't mean that the base isn't important, and the longer the race likely the greater the importance, but middle-distance runners can be trained differently than Lydiard methodology, especially as coaches are more knowledgable about physiological parameters than may have been the case 50 years ago. In facxt there are likely still ways to develop athletes to even WC levels that aren't currently explored and that don't have to be stamped as either Lydiard or Igloi (as extremes if you will).

What I found illuminating about AC's reports of the Portuguese (Mamede/Lopes), is that the individual has to be seen in terms of the program (so the differences in their training even if doing similar events) rather than about the program or event requirements themselves.

malmo wrote:

Here's a more suitable adviser for your special needs.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Running-On-And-On-With-Oprah

Man, what a dick you are. The helpful responses were that time trials are not actually 100% efforts, and sprint days are more like strides. Now it makes sense.

But initially I interpreted it as 5 workouts in 6 days and instead of trying to help me understand, you acted like a tough guy and said I should be training with Oprah? I don't see 5 workouts in 6 days in your logs (which you've freely posted), so either you're also a pussy who needs to train with Oprah, or you're just a dick who knew the right answer all along but wanted to ridicule me. Hope it boosted your self esteem.

young one wrote:

The helpful responses were that time trials are not actually 100% efforts, and sprint days are more like strides. Now it makes sense.

But initially I interpreted it as 5 workouts in 6 days and instead of trying to help me understand, you acted like a tough guy and said I should be training with Oprah? I don't see 5 workouts in 6 days in your logs (which you've freely posted), so either you're also a pussy who needs to train with Oprah, or you're just a dick who knew the right answer all along but wanted to ridicule me. Hope it boosted your self esteem.

young hothead one, there is no excuse for stupidity or laziness. You simply did not read the article you were whining about, and now a apoplectic caterwaul when given advice to seek training more synchronous to your ambitions. If you are too lazy to read Lydiards training, I can't imagine you'd do very well at actually doing it.

Very little about training for running is 100%, except perhaps once every 10 days or so. You should have known this on the first day you signed up for the sport. If you are running 100% every day then you are heading straight down a deadend street. Don't get me wrong, training can be extremely difficult at times. But when those times come, those guys who have been beating their brains out every workout will be nowhere to be found. Until you understand that simple statement you will never progress. I don't get where you get the idea that you see or don't see 5 or 6 workouts in a Lydiard schedule or in my training logs or anyone else's for that matter. You should be seeing anywhere from 10-14 workouts in each.

Ron did what he did first because he got talent to do what h did and second because he did the kind of training that able him to do what he did. If your ask brings an insinuation that it´s not because the 10X400m that he did what he did I agree, but then one more reason why is inadequate the guy that did comment that 10X400m did different output. If the train is different why we can judge by one detail what´s different in the output ? can´t be done by one interval workout.

You are right. Ron did what he did not by fast intervals and Peter didn´t either.

But my comment it´s not about this fact.

My comment it´s that the same interval workout does the same physio output on everybody, when relate to each individual ability. Therefore to think that 10X400m does a different output on peter Snell than to Ron Clarke it´s a nonsense.

In fact what is different it´s not the output, it´s that Peter and Ron are tailed for different distance events. Peter is tailed to run short to middle distance and Ron to longer distances. This is the main reason why Peter did sub 4 mile and Ron didn´t, not because that the 10X400m for 60secs is a different output for each one.

It´s why the guy that says that 10X400m is a different training output for Peter or for Ron is wrong.

I strongly advise that before post some absurd training comments that simply reveals his ignorance about the basic of distance training approach, they think twice. Or might be they take some classes about distance training or might be he needs to take some private lessons.

HRE wrote:

I've never been great at really specific numbers and generally babble a bit when I try being that way. Basically, I've always interpreted the fractions as 1/4, very easy, 1/2, moderately easy, 3/4, moderately hard. 7/8, a step or two below all out.

In any case, progression of the trials should correspond to a progression in fitness as long as the trials aren't hard enough to make you go stale.

Mathematics it´s an old science BC dated. Mathematic distance is based in unities of length, and ancient civilizations did measure every kind of long distance in the universe with high accuracy. We have watches since long ago. Every metric or mileage unity of measure is firmly defined in accuracy.

What you suggest is that one day one guy with a his own strange wired pace fraction or pace percent that is not based in mathematics, king of analphabet rough individual that couldn´t count that 3 /4. What you pretend is that one abnormal order will rule as pace percent because someone with no mathematics knowledge one day said that 3 /4 is not 3 /4 and 4/5 isn´t 4 /5. Not by change that is the same man that one day did one innovate way to lace the shoe that improves the run performance.

Imagine that we all act as he did and try to follow such kind of absurd pace system. The hour wouldn´t be 60minutes, the year would be 12 months so and so.

I don´t want to be uncivilized and miss science, education, knowledge, the mathematics. In one sentence. I don´t want to be an ignorant at all kind of issues. Actually we have the internet, cars, everything else, and we live on the 21 century and not in the obscure middle age of think that Credo quia absurdum - "I believe because it is absurd".

I don´t want to look at one table of conversion to know what´s 3 /4. I don´t want occult science that only the adepts or the brotherhood knows what it is the meaning of one number. I want to be ruled by the same universal laws of length, time and pace.

Then you go right ahead and do that.

Khadaffi on power wrote:

Therefore to think that 10X400m does a different output on peter Snell than to Ron Clarke it´s a nonsense.

I see.

So do you believe that an interval workout of say, 10 x 400m in 61 seconds with 1 minute recovery, would give exactly the same physiological stimulus to either Peter Snell or Ron Clarke?

I wonder if we´ll ever have a Lydiard thread without the guy with the lousy English?

Psychotherapist wrote:

I see.

So do you believe that an interval workout of say, 10 x 400m in 61 seconds with 1 minute recovery, would give exactly the same physiological stimulus to either Peter Snell or Ron Clarke?

The original post doesn´t timed the interval recovery. I was the first one to say that the kind of interval recovery may change the picture. Remember I said that “Different interval recovery leads to different output more than speed. If you omit the interval recovery of that 10X400m for 60secs we miss to understand what the meaning of that 10X400m is”.

The fact that the original post doesn´t refer the kind of interval recovery is because the guy that wrote the original post of this discuss misses the meaning of the interval recovery kind and it´s why he just focus on pace and workout format, because for him it´s the pace the main variable to interfere in zone stimulus of effort.

May be you read very quickly and you turn your inventive imagination to something I never said, and I don´t think the original post means about interval recovery.

Further up I wrote that “the same interval workout does the same physio output on everybody, when relate to each individual ability. Therefore to think that 10X400m does a different output on Peter Snell than to Ron Clarke it´s a nonsense”.

May be you read very quickly and you miss the meaning of WHEN RELATE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ABILITY, or might be that you don´t understand what is the meaning relate to each individual ability, or you will’nt answer your last post question.

Here you have the answer. If the INDIVIDUAL ABILITY is the same for 2 runners, consequently the physio stimulus or physio impact of the same interval workout is the same for both. If the individual ability is different, for every kind of reason, from different body tailed, to different age, to different training background, to different training profile, to different phase of the season periodization, different skill to interval workout perform, consequently the physio impact of that 2 different runners ability is different always.

As by the reality as well as common sense, the hypothesis that Ron and Pete were equal individual physic ability then the impact of 10X400m is different in both always. Therefore we might take 2 interesting conclusions from what I say: the impossibility of 2 runners do 2 workouts that does the same impact. The first conclusion is that a proper discuss about the effect of every training impact shall be done only by the methodology theory with abstract examples or in examples of theory and not concrete examples, like is done in the useless example to relate Ron with Peter.

The second conclusion is about the original post. If there’s no way to relate 2 workouts for 2 runners then the example of the original post that tries to demonstrate that the same workouts acts different for one person or another is a nonsense hypothesis in the world of concrete training range, the field of facts. The hypothesis to show that Ron and Peter did the same workout to attempt the same target goal, sub 4mile, it´s an absurd hypothesis, only fruit of training ignorance, because is out of factual hypothesis. It´s why should be removed as an adequate example.

You are right about each different context. However I don´t want to move the conversation to that your level of interpretation because I simply wanted to focus on the nonsense of the original post that tries to relate Ron with peter by one workout to wrongly conclude that the same workout can lead to different output.

The Lydiard addicted knows all that you say eventually.

Simply the Lydiard person does follow for decades the same training method, year on and on, some of them they pursuit that same kind of training for more than 30 years. Some of them they found institutions in the name of that training. Actually they aren´t courageous to turn on and change from what they did prescribe for an entire life.

One more point. Classic Portuguese training, Mamede and Lopes and more, was been quite good, but needs to be update as well. Remember that was been on the top peak in mid 80s, actually some 25 years ago.

and I wonder if people on this board would ever stop talking about Lydiard. Why the obsession?

Years of Coaching wrote:

and I wonder if people on this board would ever stop talking about Lydiard. Why the obsession?

Which obsession? The ones who bring his methods up to knock it or those who bring it up to praise it?

HRE wrote:

Then you go right ahead and do that.

See. What i say in my last post. This guys are made in stone. They will’nt change nothing at all despite the rational argument or the evidence.

Some of them, more sophisticated, they appeal to training method translated to modern physiology, but when the physilogy doesn´t fit into their training package they name to that science fuzzology. Some more sophisticated, they appeal to their transcendental gestalt perception.

I never make references to physiology when I discuss training.

Yes. It was. Why exactly do you think Peter Snell is the greatest MD runner of all time? Why did Arthur Lydiard mentor so many medalists and champions? Because it was hard. It worked. The mzungu were dedicated to their cause.

People on this board are obsessed with running -- it's a running forum. Discussion about running invariably includes discussion about training. In another thread Renato Canova recently acknowledged "The base of modern training is in the ideas of Lydiard and Percy Cerutty."So Lydiard, as old and outdated as he is, is still relevant in modern training -- hence the frequent discussions of Lydiard and his methods and principles.I wonder the opposite: Why aren't there more discussions about training improvements since the '70's?What are better alternatives? Who, or what, should we be discussing?

Years of Coaching wrote:

and I wonder if people on this board would ever stop talking about Lydiard. Why the obsession?

Can you recommend a good book on modern training?

Khadaffi on power wrote:

See. What i say in my last post. This guys are made in stone. They will’nt change nothing at all despite the rational argument or the evidence.

Some of them, more sophisticated, they appeal to training method translated to modern physiology, but when the physilogy doesn´t fit into their training package they name to that science fuzzology. Some more sophisticated, they appeal to their transcendental gestalt perception.