Lydiard Almost Got it PERFECT! (by John Kellogg)

Bob Schul Country wrote:

And the only American to win the 5000 meter gold had a system that was the complete opposite of AL.

Igloi's system wasn't all anaerobic intervals. A fair amount of it was actually a strong aerobic stimulus (i.e. repeat 100s with very short rest. A bit of an unorthodox way of doing it, but it wasn't all hard track work like we think of it today.

I think Steve Magness weote about this, but I'm pretty sure there's more out there.

Agreed. I have read Canova's description of what he does a few times and thought, "Arthur could have written that" except for the bit where he adds, "We're not just doing Lydiard here."

optional wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Also, John Walker used to do 5-10k of 50m sprints with a glide in between, this is where they got it from.

A)You are saying that John Walker got this from Lydiard, right? Because Walker came along after Peter Snell, who was doing this in the training for 1964 Olympics.

B)Also, when you say it looks a lot like Canova's programs...I think you are right. Canova likes to say Lydiard is out of date and not good anymore for training, well, most of what he does looks a lot like Lydiard. From the early 1960s and on, I would say that most of what we see in training stems from the principles of Lydiard's training.

For comment A) sorry about that, by "they" I should have said Arch Jelly and Walker.

B) yeah among others who say Lydiard is out if date but their pre comp programs look identical to this.

HRE wrote:

Agreed. I have read Canova's description of what he does a few times and thought, "Arthur could have written that" except for the bit where he adds, "We're not just doing Lydiard here."

Yeah, it's so funny to see how people just do not want to be labeled as Lydiard followers. But most are.

Do you build a base? Then that's Lydiard.

Do you progress from 'general' work to 'specific' work? (But also include some faster work year-round ?) Then that's Lydiard.

But hey, I'm not judging! :)

optional wrote:

HRE wrote:

Agreed. I have read Canova's description of what he does a few times and thought, "Arthur could have written that" except for the bit where he adds, "We're not just doing Lydiard here."

Yeah, it's so funny to see how people just do not want to be labeled as Lydiard followers. But most are.

Do you build a base? Then that's Lydiard.

Do you progress from 'general' work to 'specific' work? (But also include some faster work year-round ?) Then that's Lydiard.

But hey, I'm not judging! :)

not really. lydiard was not the first coach to advocate building a base. lydiard was not the first coach to go from general to specific while including some faster pace stuff.

yes, he coached some great successful athletes, but contrary to popular belief nothing lydiard did was actually revolutionary. he should get infinite credit for producing great athletes. however, he gets more credit for "creating" all these principles than he deserves.

So...who was it then?

Isn't this obsolete with modern training like Kipchoge does?

Lydiard is out of date because athletics now is very much different from 50 years ago, but the principles of Lydiard are still at the base of every program.

Which are the main evident differences ?

Now, we don't have, and don't need anymore, to have long periods of general basic preparation.

This is true when we speak about beginners : the way for starting endurance events is the same of 50 years ago, and there are no doubts about the necessity to develop a long, continuous and gradual increase in what we call "general resistance", that is exactly what Lydiard did. At the same time, we need to continue to build strength, in all its forms, that is at the base of the development of the speed.

But many years ago, after a full season, athletes started again from the ground.

Michel Jazy, already record holder of 1500m (3'36"4), 2000m (5') and 5000m (13'24"), at the end of the season rested completely for one month, and his first 90 days of training included 3 hours of run at 5' per km pace (almost 8' per mile).

At the light of what we know today, this training was completely useless, and sometimes damageous.

At that time, we justified this training with the goal of increasing the number of vessels, calling this process "capillarization". This was correct for a certain period of time, but, after 2-3 years, we can't increase the number of vessels if we don't do long run at more intensive speed.

The athletics of 50 years ago didn't have the same number of opportunity there are today. There were not WCh, not many international meetings, no real money. The athletes were real "amateurs" (with some money under the table only, paying attention not to be discovered, otherwise could be DQ by the IAAF for being "professional"). Athletes belonging to Countries of Commonwealth had two windows every 2 years (the even years) : Olympics, and Commonwealth Games. Athletes not in Commonwealth Games, for example European, had Olympics and European Championships.

The odd years were practically empty, with only some match among National Teams.

In those conditions, to think of continuity in training at high level of intensity was something impossible, since the best athletes couldn't maintain the same motivation for very long time, without competition at maximum level.

For some Country like Ethiopia the situation was still worse : they didn't have other stimuli than every 4 years, looking at Olympics, and went to boycott two edition (1976 and 1984), with very long period agonistically empty.

With the change at the top of IAAF in 1979, when the Italian Primo Nebiolo became President, athletics changed, becoming professional. From 1983 we had, every 4 years, WCh, was created the Golden League, on the road the number of top Marathon grew every year, the number of indoor track became bigger, World Indoor Championships were created, and athletics became very much more popular. Also when we speak about Cross Country, I remember that the first time there was an African Team for juniores was in 1982, when World Cross Country Championships were in Rome, and the IAAF (for the will of Nebiolo) paid the travel to the full Ethiopian Team, that won ahead the strongest Italian Team ever.

Becoming more professional the athletic organization, also the athletes became more professional : their activity had to last all the season, and the training system had to change. So, one of the most important points was NEVER THEY HAD TO LOSE WHAT ALREADY THEY HAVE.

This means that every type of intensity, in any event, needed to be trained also out of season, and never had to decrease too much. For example, athletes for 1'43" in 800m MUST be able to run in 1'47" also in winter, and their training has to include specific speeds, not at the same intensity of the last specific period, but in any case at 90% of the max individual ability.

This was not true at the time of Lydiard.

Another source of confusion is the name we called the Lydiard system : Marathon Training. This system was good as basic for ALL THE EVENTS of endurance, ECCEPT the marathon. Lydiard produced, directly or indirectly, a lot of top runners on track in distance between 800 and 1500m, very little in 10,000 and nothing in Marathon (with the only ecception of Ron Dixon winning NY with a type of training not depending on Lydiard principles.

So, when I say that Lydiard is out of date, I mean that today, if somebody wants to follow Lydiard system, he has to look at an activity that is not professional and doesn't have all the MUSTS top athletes have today. Top athletes reduce the time dedicated to build up their base, for the simple reason that, after building already 5 floors of their aerobic house, their off season put them at the 4th floor only, and from there they start to build again some new floor, when in the past the best athletes, after already having the 5th floor, could start again the next preparation from the 1st floor only, needing a lot of time for rebuilding something, that they already had.

The history of the training methods can teach many things, because the development is based on what somebody was able to do in the past. In any case, always was clear the final goal for increasing the performances in any event of endurance : TO INCREASE THE VOLUME OF SPECIFIC INTENSITY.

This means NOT the volume at low intensity, like in Lydiard and first 70' years, when many athletes (of middle distances too) had a mileage of almost 200 miles per week (320 km) at low intensity.

This means NOT the intensity, like in the period 1990-2005, when in Europe and America athletes cut the volume looking at higher intensity only, with a continue decrease in the performances.

But the increase of the VOLUME of SPECIFIC INTENSITY, that needs, in any part of the year, extensive volume (from 180 to 230 km per week, in the period without competitions, depending on the event) and intensive training (always elements of the preparation at submaximal intensity).

as renato just explained, nothing lydiard did was revolutionary. training evolved as science advanced and as the nature of competitive seasons (and professional athletics) evolved.

lydiard gets all the credit in the world for coaching some amazing athletes, but nothing he did actually holds fully true to today's knowledge of training.

sure, any random runner can try "lydiard" training and improve tremendously but it's really only because he or she is just running more mileage than ever before. of course that runner is going to improve.

Renato Canova wrote:

Lydiard is out of date because athletics now is very much different from 50 years ago, but the principles of Lydiard are still at the base of every program.

This.

Well I don't know what to say Renato but if you look at the program published by HRH it looks decidedly modern.

➡ 20 x 220 (very standard)

➡ 660 - 1m27s 100yds 11s times 2 (looks like a Nick Willis or Kyle Merber session)

➡ 3mile - (50yd dashes) surge conditioning, top end sprint speed very NOP.

➡ 20 x 440 (very standard) ↔ some at 55s

➡ 22 miles

➡ 3 miles - 14.12 (hard VO2max conditioning)

➡ 6 x 880 Av 2.10 (pretty standard)

➡time trials like 660 - 1m19s, 800mts fast - 1.47.1, 3/4 mile 2m.56s

Really the Lydiard estate should charge copyright infringement on coaches over the last 53 years.

➡things are constantly being refined and more scientific with better technology so improvements on Lydiard are to be expected.

➡you are correct to point out that Lydiard personally didn’t coach a great 10,000m runner as such. But I always remedied this by saying that really Ron Clarke was the zeitgeist of Lydiard training in the 1960s with one difference, Lydiard would have worked on his sprint finish. He did work with the Finns (but best we don't discuss that one).

➡ Lydiard didn’t coach Dixon, he coached Magee 3rd 1960. John Davies coached Mike Ryan to a bronze in 1968. I always thought that Lydiard in the end was coaching one of the top Japanese or South Korean runners who did very well but I will leave that to others.

➡the interesting thing is that when people cast aspersions on Kenyan runners, Lydiard would always defend Kenyans as simply training harder than everyone else. Ngugi told him he did 150 miles per week and went for 50km runs which was music to his ears.

➡interestingly this is from Scully "What I was surprised about is how little Taoufik ran, mileage wise. His longest run of the week was 70 minutes and that was in February, March and maybe the first part of April. Other then that it was a 60 minute recovery run at a painfully slow pace (9km an hour). This was done in May, and maybe June. After that is was reduced to 45 minutes of easy easy running for his longest run. Similar to 9km an hour. Weekly mileage was not really a main topic of conversation. It was more about what quality work is being done in the week."

https://www.scullytherapyclinic.com/single-post/2017/02/18/Taoufik-Makhloufi-Training

Morceli was similar but again these are North Africans so they are probably dodgy. Anyhow Lydiard never emphasized stale slow training all the time he did actually emphasize different paces but he was a "one peak" per year training cycle.

Lydiard principles are not the foundation of every program.

Nobody top of the world level follows that program, high, moderate or low mileage. Who honestly believes jogging around is worth a damn? Who is hill bounding? Or still playing for a single peak? Or avoiding "anaerobic work" year round? Remember, Lydiard wrote that 2:12 was about as fast as anyone would go on a flat accurate marathon course.

The reason the 5000 and 10000 were relatively slow in the 60s and 70s is lack of Kenyan and Ethiopian presence, and the lack of

I want to add though; if the youngsters (who lack the base) would forget thinking about the workouts too much and do less event specific/intense work during the base phase, and follow Lydiard instead (while not overdoing it, and taking the recovery needed), the peak in season would be higher and last longer. But because they often try to mimic the training of the elites who has the talent AND the base, they fail to create the base needed to benefit from the intense work and underperform at races. If you do too much of event specific work too soon (in your career/during base phase), you simply fail to create the "aerobic house", in the words of Renato. There are exceptions like Coe who had the talent and naturally high aerobic capacity with a high anaerobic capacity; this allowed him to train less volume and more "quality", recovering quickly from the workouts and still being able to run a 5k/15k/10 miles very fast, so his LT was at high level despite the lower volume. Most of us will need much more easy-moderate miles to improve the aerobic capacity to be high enough for the event.

I think that Peter Snell, if athlete of the present days, in the current athletics, with his talent, could have the possibility to run under 1'43" and under 3'30", and of course his training had to be different.

The training posted by HRE regards the last period before Tokyo OG only, and is not so hard, apart the 20 x 440y that, during the last session, Peter ran at 58" / 59" of average.

The best specialists of today (probably not more talented than Peter) run higher volume on track, and the intensity of the long tests is higher too. For example, 3 miles in 14'15" is something as 14'50" in 5000m, and is very slow for an athlete having the goal to run 3'30", also if very fast in 800m. This is the minimal aerobic support for somebody coming from short distance and never running something long, like instead all the group of Lydiard did.

The best runners of 1500m have, in their normal training, when in the fundamental phase, some fast continuous run of 5-10 km, at pace of 2'55" or less in altitude, something Peter Snell was of sure able to do looking at his very long runs, but really never did, and this base of Aerobic Power at the end is the main difference between his training and the modern system, and is the difference between 3'34" and 3'30".

However, Lydiard was an "animal" born for coaching, able to adapt his training to different situations, and I'm sure that, if was alive in our period, his training could be different, in order to achieve different goals.

In conclusion : the principles at the base of Lydiard training are still valid, but their interpretation and their application is now different, because we live two different types of athletics.

People looking at the "classic" Lydiard system are not ready for living athletics full time, with the seasons we have today, if they want to be World Class athletes, but if are amateurs of veterans, not needing any periodization, can still use the classic method, and are sure to improve without too many risks of injuries and of overtraining.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

He did work with the Finns (but best we don't discuss that one).

I want to discuss a bit of this.

Without Lydiard there wouldn't have been the overwhelming enthusiasm towards distance running. In the 50-60's we Finns believed that "interval training" is the key. Lydiard traveled across Finland with Kari Sinkkonen (the coach of Pekka Vasala) giving lectures and made us understand the importance of a very strong base. Suddenly there were thousands of runners logging high mileage, some of them survived without injuries/overtraining, some of them overdid it (too quick increase of mileage). The coach of Lasse Virén, Rolf Haikkola was a bit ahead of his time (he was a 14:18 5k runner in the -40-50's) and had already personally done up to 35k long runs in his training, before no one knew Lydiard. Haikkola was a bit sceptical about the Lydiard hill training/bounding phase though. But I'm sure that he also took plenty of things from Lydiard, like the 50-50meter repeats session.

Yes, it is probably possible to get more out of an athlete like Snell if he didn’t have a day job. More core conditioning, yes and even altitude training.

I don't think the 3 miles was near 100% effort. But you must also remember he did do this after none stop speed training daily with only long runs for respite.

Snell says that he wasn't a great miler, but he was very good over 800m. History would agree with this.

Interestingly, someone posted on here one of Wilfred Bungei's training (perhaps my favourite Kenyan) and he did (if true) alot of 3k time trials in season for fitness and they were 9.10-15s so Snell's 14:40 5k pace isn't bad from an 800m runners perspective but yes a modern miler would probably handle a quicker pace. I think this was the southern hemispheres winter which might slow things down a bit (but I think Auckland is quite warm year round so it might not be an excuse).

In the 1970s there was a subtle shift by Lydiard to hard 10k sessions (not far off race pace), very similar to a lot of Kenyans, I think that you use this.

Westerners need to get training and conditioned again even most of us joggers. If they get good they can move on from there. I have a theory that the Lydiard system of lots of 2hrs+ of running is what 2/3rds-3/4qtrs of whites benefit from and the rest of the westerners need all year round speed (more modern). Whereas the likes of Tergat do two runs say 50 mins at 6AM then 45mins at 10AM etc. Westerners need very long runs to catch up. My theory at lest.

U.N.O. wrote:

Haikkola was a bit sceptical about the Lydiard hill training/bounding phase though.

Interesting,

Walker didn't do the bounding phase either. A lot of athletes do hurt themselves in this phase but it does help stride length and the achilles/calf conditioning.

Lydiard reckoned that Finland was one of the few places where you could run on the snow in winter.

I'd bet that the hill bounding and springing is the most controversial phase of Lydiard training and possibly the most abandoned today. When I was getting advice from Barry Magee he told me specifically that when doing hill training I should avoid bounding and springing and simply run up the hills. I never asked him why nor did I ever ask if that was something he had all of his athletes avoid or if that was peculiar to me.

On the topic of Lydiard producing great 10,000 meter runners, Richard Tayler was quite good. If he hadn't been felled by arthritis prior to the Montreal Olympics he well could have been a factor in that race. And you cannot ignore the influence he had on Viren even if it was one step removed. The same is true for Billy Mills. Pat Clohessey got Mills to train more along Lydiard lines prior to the Tokyo Games, though Mills' version evidently was far from pure Lydiard.

I think he and that other British guy who broke the 4:00 minute barrier under-reported their training. An ego thing or in the later case to avoid being accused of wasting their time on a "trivial pursuit". People say they did low mileage, but they were probably doing a lot more un-reported miles, in my opinion.

This allowed him to train less volume and more "quality", recovering quickly from the workouts and still being able to run a 5k/15k/10 miles very fast, so his LT was at high level despite the lower volume.