I'm sure Martin respects Lydiard, as do the Coeseseses. He isn't mentioned very often in their books, but the influence cannot be denied. All training is a variation of previous training. Runners not being influenced by Lydiard is akin to musicians not being influenced by Beatles. It's rather unlikely!
Skuj wrote:
Runners not being influenced by Lydiard is akin to musicians not being influenced by Beatles. It's rather unlikely!
I assume you are joking. If not, you are a musical moron.
Eeewkay then! (I wasn't joking. I'll see you at
) :)
The Coemartinbook describes several "rooms" that should be visited: Aerobic conditioning, anaerobic conditioning, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, strength / circuits / weights, stretching and mobility, health maintenance....is that all? These rooms are on a floor, and there are several floors, representing the mesocycles of a year. Different emphases exist in each meso, but the rooms are all visited on each floor, for varying amounts of time.
I would suppose that many of these rooms in the Lydiard Building only exist on the yupper floors?
Damn, I love analogies!
O..O
XXXX
Cheers
Darren Skuja
Skuj:
I'm glad that you've straightened up your name issue; though it probably would have never happened if you identified yourself and your e-mail address to public in the first place???
I have NO idea what "yupper" floors mean (language barrier?) but I can tell you this: You can make training program as complicated as you want it to look; you can draw a blueprint for a 365-floor building with 120 rooms on each floor. But at the end of the day, the question is; can you really build it? Can you, with that complicated impressive-looking blueprint, duplicate that building anywhere else in the world?
Skuj:
I was actually going to say; "I'm glad you've straightened up your name issue (thank God, for my sake too!)" ;0)
Skuj wrote:
Eeewkay then! (I wasn't joking. I'll see you at
http://www.susanlawley.org) :)
The guy's handle is Beethoven. Get it? He's saying your blanket presumption regarding the Beatles' influence is narrow minded. There were musicians before the Beatles, you know.
Skuj wrote:
Eeewkay then! (I wasn't joking. I'll see you at
http://www.susanlawley.org) :)
The Coemartinbook describes several "rooms" that should be visited: Aerobic conditioning, anaerobic conditioning, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, strength / circuits / weights, stretching and mobility, health maintenance....is that all? These rooms are on a floor, and there are several floors, representing the mesocycles of a year. Different emphases exist in each meso, but the rooms are all visited on each floor, for varying amounts of time.
I would suppose that many of these rooms in the Lydiard Building only exist on the yupper floors?
Damn, I love analogies!
O..O
XXXX
Cheers
Darren Skuja
http://www.absolutelyrunning.com
Suggestion -- don't paste that link to the bottom of your posts unless you are hoping people won't visit that site. People who read posts like the one quoted are going to think you are stupid (Coemartinbook? Learn how to use the spacebar! -- Rooms? Metaphor overload. -- yupper floors? WTF?). Just trying to help.
Oh, my my. Goodness gracious me. A fellow takes a few days away and look what he finds upon return. Obviously you boys have had quite a time continuing this discussion. Any now we have even more skujs? This is too good to be true. Nevertheless there have been many positive contributions made to the discussion since my last visit. I have enjoyed catching up!
It would seem, however, that we are really comparing apples to oranges. Are we not? Both are attractive, delicious, and good for you. Yes, they are different, but they both offer us much of the same thing. Can not the same be said of Lydiard and Coe/Martin? I think so. Perhaps Lydidard can help us better avoid scurvy, while Coe/Martin make a better pie. But, we are really just splitting hairs I think.
And of course no coach in his right mind is going to follow either routine to the letter. A good coach will absorb something from both philosophies and combine that with other knowledge to form his own training philosophy. Are we not men? (Dry earth vents often.)
Hopefully it will not be so long before my next visitation. Thank you all for carrying on with this worthwhile debate. I bid you good day.
Terence wrote:
Skuj wrote:Eeewkay then! (I wasn't joking. I'll see you at
http://www.susanlawley.org) :)
The guy's handle is Beethoven. Get it? He's saying your blanket presumption regarding the Beatles' influence is narrow minded. There were musicians before the Beatles, you know.
Ooops! This is a good point. Instead of "musician" I should have said "singer songwriter". Perhaps.
I AM a music freak. Seriously.
Cheers
Darren Skuja
www.absolutelyrunning.comHappy wrote:
Skuj wrote:Eeewkay then! (I wasn't joking. I'll see you at
http://www.susanlawley.org) :)
The Coemartinbook describes several "rooms" that should be visited: Aerobic conditioning, anaerobic conditioning, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, strength / circuits / weights, stretching and mobility, health maintenance....is that all? These rooms are on a floor, and there are several floors, representing the mesocycles of a year. Different emphases exist in each meso, but the rooms are all visited on each floor, for varying amounts of time.
I would suppose that many of these rooms in the Lydiard Building only exist on the yupper floors?
Damn, I love analogies!
O..O
XXXX
Cheers
Darren Skuja
http://www.absolutelyrunning.comSuggestion -- don't paste that link to the bottom of your posts unless you are hoping people won't visit that site. People who read posts like the one quoted are going to think you are stupid (Coemartinbook? Learn how to use the spacebar! -- Rooms? Metaphor overload. -- yupper floors? WTF?). Just trying to help.
I'msorrythatIhavebotheredyouinthisway.
Cheers
Darren Skuja
www.absolutelyrunning.comThe Professor wrote:
Oh, my my. Goodness gracious me. A fellow takes a few days away and look what he finds upon return. Obviously you boys have had quite a time continuing this discussion. Any now we have even more skujs? This is too good to be true. Nevertheless there have been many positive contributions made to the discussion since my last visit. I have enjoyed catching up!
It would seem, however, that we are really comparing apples to oranges. Are we not? Both are attractive, delicious, and good for you. Yes, they are different, but they both offer us much of the same thing. Can not the same be said of Lydiard and Coe/Martin? I think so. Perhaps Lydidard can help us better avoid scurvy, while Coe/Martin make a better pie. But, we are really just splitting hairs I think.
And of course no coach in his right mind is going to follow either routine to the letter. A good coach will absorb something from both philosophies and combine that with other knowledge to form his own training philosophy. Are we not men? (Dry earth vents often.)
Hopefully it will not be so long before my next visitation. Thank you all for carrying on with this worthwhile debate. I bid you good day.
So good to hear from you Professor.
There really is only one Skuj. And now the name is registered, linked to my email, with my web site provided, just in case anyone has any doubts in the future.
Yes, Apples and Oranges. Beatles and Stones. Multipacing by micro and Mutipacing by meso. Beer and Wine. Lydiard and Coe. Artist and Engineer. You took the words right out of my mouth, oh Wise One. Thank you for you enlightening post.
40x200m with short recovery. Seems to me this type of session was a staple of the Coeseses, and perhaps an overlooked item of training by top North Americans in general. I rarely hear of others doing such high volumes of short runs like 200s. Discuss.
Cheers
Darren Skuja
www.absolutelyrunning.comNobby wrote:
Skuj:
I'm glad that you've straightened up your name issue; though it probably would have never happened if you identified yourself and your e-mail address to public in the first place???
I have NO idea what "yupper" floors mean (language barrier?) but I can tell you this: You can make training program as complicated as you want it to look; you can draw a blueprint for a 365-floor building with 120 rooms on each floor. But at the end of the day, the question is; can you really build it? Can you, with that complicated impressive-looking blueprint, duplicate that building anywhere else in the world?
Hey Nobby. Yeah, I'm glad I cleared this name thing up too. Sure, I learned a lesson the hard way that one really should register.
yupper was a typo, hahahaha. A very funny one, I think.
I would hope that the building analogy is the opposite of complicated, in that it gives a visual clue to a methodology that may seem very complicated when first encountered.
Cheers
Darren Skuja
www.absolutelyrunning.comIt might be worth mentioning that while people often categorize things as anaerobic, for the most part nothing is ever truly anaerobic for an extended period of time if worked at long enough. Lets say I have a 400 meter Pr of 55 and I'm doing quater repeats at 59 pace. Right now these quaters might be considered quite anaerobic but if I continue to increase the number of repeats that I can do at this pace till I reach 50 repeats will this still be considered anaerobic? On another line of thought what if I begin to very slowly extend the amount of time that I maintain this pace for. Lets say by 25 meters. Is the pace itself anaerobic or the fact that I run it for such short distances? If today I'm runing these quarters in 59 and in a month I'm running 500's in 1:13. What if you come back in another month and a half maybe and I"m running 600's in 1:28, then another month and a half I'm running 700's in 1:43. Has this pace become more aerobic or is it still anaerobic. I would say that its become more aerobic and as you continue to extend the amount of time your can run at that pace the more aerobic it will become. I think that things exist in a continuom (sorry for my lack of correct spelling) whereby whats anaerobic today might not be so tomorrow and much less so in the weeks and months after. On a personal note it might help if I admit from the outset that I'm biased towards gradually increasing the amount of time spent at a particular(perhaps and maybe most beneficially goal) pace. From my knowledge even fast twitch muscles can produce energy aerobically even though running at high speeds. High speed doesnt automatically mean anaerobic. I could explain myself more thoroughly but I'd rather cut my already lengthy reply short. If anyone is interested in my take on things I'll post more explaining myself but for now thats all. This reply is referring to where people were saying that anaerobic wokr erodes aerobic conditioning but I really think that it doesn't or at least doesn't have to; especially "anaerobic" or high speed training that is progressive in nature.
test
Well look what the cat dragged in. I shall reread this thread in order to get a sense of what we were discussing / arguing about back then. I like your post, Redhat.
And I can post now, too! :) Only 2 deletions and a short banishment for me today. Pretty normal lately, I guess.
I'm in the process of testing this method of training at this very moment on myself and one other runner who has agreed to try this as well. I'll keep you posted on how this goes. Right now we have until the end of the year to reach our personal goals following this method. We practice in a modified version of the five pace system in which we use four paces. One step faster (for example if training for 1 mile you train at 800 or if training for 800 then one steop faster would be 400), one step slower and every other week we alternate the one step slower with two steps or paces or whatever you'd like to call it slower. All of these are run at goal pace where we gradually increase the distance we can run at this pace until we can complete the full distance in the desired time. Simple but we are still in the process of working things out...