Lydiard Imitations

Gypsy, I am one of the "Lydiardites" and was about to join in as I feel this was maybe a little more constructive than the past. But when the crap started I decided not to bother. In the past all I have ever tried to do is try to explain what I understood Arthur was trying to put across. But many times all we got was "brick walls". Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss anything .. but take note I am no expert.

BTW : With my background I tend call myself a "Dolanite" as I was someone (Like Arthur) who would not be in this sport of iit was not for Jack Dolan.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Gypsy, I am one of the "Lydiardites" and was about to join in as I feel this was maybe a little more constructive than the past. But when the crap started I decided not to bother. In the past all I have ever tried to do is try to explain what I understood Arthur was trying to put across. But many times all we got was "brick walls". Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss anything .. but take note I am no expert.

BTW : With my background I tend call myself a "Dolanite" as I was someone (Like Arthur) who would not be in this sport of it was not for Jack Dolan.

Hi Kim, we have actually met once, but i doubt you would remember.

I like how you've casually paid respect to the lineage. So this may as well be my first question. Did Jack spark Arthur's fertile mind along this track that ended up with Lydiardism?

"I'm here for one" and those other knocks at Canova and Cabral indicate a huge ego; - That's the main problem with this thread actually, but I agree that gypsy tops that hill.

The world revolves around him...major coaches in the world are dodging him, and are afraid of him?? Ha!

Just gag me.

Arthur told a story of being taken for a run by Jack Dolan. He thought he was "fit" but Jack "killed" him. That got Arthur thinking .. the rest as they say is History.

My own dealing with Jack was as a 17 year old turning up to Lynndale Club and being made welcome by Jack. As the months rolled on I proved to very much a very poor 6th runner of 6 in my age group. I was too inconsistent with my training. But that did not deter Jack and he continued to be encouraging, no matter the placings I got ..usually at the back of the field. Within 4 years there was only 2 of us left in the Sport .. Admittedly one of the others went to Canoeing and ultimately the 1972 Olympics .. the other 3 just faded away.

If it was not for Jack's encouragement I would have been another to "fade" way.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Arthur told a story of being taken for a run by Jack Dolan. He thought he was "fit" but Jack "killed" him.

I guess i was wondering if Jack imparted some knowledge beyond that direct experience of being 'killed' that sparked Arthur's interest.

If it was not for Jack's encouragement I would have been another to "fade" way.

See isn't this the starting point of coaching? Yet it is never talked about because it is not 'interesting' i guess. Probably it's only talked about casually by those who are aware of it. I like New Zealand for a lot of reasons, one of which is the people centeredness there. More than any other country i've been too. There is extra wisdom in the water over there i think. Do i remember correctly that you are in Rotorua?

Okay, As Arthur has said "In my day we played Rugby and practised one or two nights a week. We all smoked and drank beer." He was about 28 when Jack Dolan (a lot older than him) took him for a run (as said before). I am sure it was quite a few runs knowing Jack !!. It was about then that Arthur said he started to look at himself and realised he was getting obese and out of condition. He stopped smoking. He then got hold of a copy of F A M Webster's book "The Science of Athletics".

He said Webster advised training 7 days a week. Which hardly anyone did back then. Webster recommended walking 3 days a week and running Four. So Arthur took that thinking forward and ran 7 days a week .. That is where he started experimenting with what worked and what did not. As much as 250 miles a week. As he said "26 miles before breakfast and 15 miles in the evening"

Yes ! I am in Rotorua. When and where did we meet ?

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Yes ! I am in Rotorua. When and where did we meet ?

Arthur smoking before he had his mind 'changed'. Wonderful :)

I met you at a competition, perhaps nat schools.

I can't even remember the city, maybe Hamilton, but i know we will meet again soon enough.

ps this thread has been cleaned

SmithStn wrote:

The essence of Lydiard's ideas make an appearance in fragments of this discussion, but really, this discussion is bloated. If Canova, Cabral, et al think Lydiard did not propose "long and fast" as a training stimulus, they are incorrect. A careful reading of Lydiard shows he wanted runners to a) increase volume b) keep the intensity conversational c) increase the speed at which they conducted (a) with the caveat that it be kept near the conditions of (b). There is some fuzzy anaerobic/aerobic boundary with a rate attached to it for each athlete and AL wanted to push out that rate for each athlete.

Intresting what you say.

Question. Are you a new Lydiard interpreter, someone else it says a new thing about Lydiard and that usually says or adds something new and different to what Lydiard said in public or what you say it´s documented by Lydiard authourship ?

Let´s make an attempt of scrutiny about Lydiard training.

You might say every aspect about Lydiard training. But can you prove by Lydiard document, book, conference, presentation, article, every public prove that your a) b) c) items are correct relate to the Lydiard training public prove and free access?

If you are able to prove that Lydiard prescribes his training pace as you say, we can continue, but if you don´t and you have no prove that he did prescribe "long and fast" and you are able to prove what he meant by "long and fast" i willn´t continue and your post is out of interest because doesn´t prove Lydiard training at at all, it´s just a your own individual Lydiard interpretation. Resuming. Where is the Lydiard source that you get this lydiard interpretation ?

This is what is methodology, the training methodology. Everyone shall prove by factual and public access the evidence what it´s said. If you don´t Lydiard prove by Lydiard himself source, what you say it´s nothing but speculation and your own individual opinion. If so i willn´t continue.

And please, in methodology as well as in every subject, private conversations as "Lydiard said, Lydiard told me" it´s not prove at all, it´s not evidence, shalln´t be admitted as general prove or theme of debate.

However i can prove to you BY LYDIARD facts, Lydiard writing and documents that Lydiard is the author that he prescribes "aerobic first". I can prove the "aerobic first" as well as he excludes every sensible/high anaerobic pace during the build-up block that is ouit of his aerobic define. I can prove it to you that during the aerobic block he prescribes "the best aerobic pace" as a guideline of faster pace for that phase/block.

Or, you might do the curious exercise that is to interpret the Lydiard "aerobic training" as LONG and FAST ?

Antonio Cabral wrote:

So Lydiard’s whole teaching (to me) all comes back to: “Maximise aerobic conditioning. And do it first.”

Which I do not agree with by the way, but if you ask me I’ll come to that later.

Still waiting on this Antonio.

You are asking new questions but have failed to answer any yourself. What gives?

Kim, one thing I've always wanted to know is why Arthur was pretty set on the idea that the main runs would benefit a runner more if they were something like 60 minutes one day then 90 minutes the next versus 75 minutes each day. One reason I ask that is that I know there was a period when Arthur ran 12 miles a day.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

If you are able to prove that Lydiard prescribes his training pace as you say, we can continue, but if you don´t and you have no prove that he did prescribe "long and fast" and you are able to prove what he meant by "long and fast"

......

Resuming. Where is the Lydiard source that you get this lydiard interpretation ?

.........

I can prove it to you that during the aerobic block he prescribes "the best aerobic pace" as a guideline of faster pace for that phase/block.

Antonio - to address the above in order......

The original Lydiard 'Run To The Top' book has a marathon specific schedule that includes runs such as '18m @ 1/2', '15m @ 3/4', etc. Once you know what the efforts relate to then those both class as long and fast, in my book at least.

Source - Barry Magee, who I'm sure you know is one of the original 'Lydiard boys' shared with me some of the paces they used to run, so '18m @ 1/2' would be similar to what Renato Canova prescribes as a long run @ 90%. Additionally '15m @ 3/4' is near as dammit marathon pace (certainly marathon effort allowing for cumulative fatigue).

The '10m @ 3/4' and '10m @ 1/2' efforts during base would be similar, relative, paces to the above, though shorter than in the marathon specific phase obviously. Moving from one phase to another would class as extension of effort to be able to last longer at the same pace, again similar (note similar, not same) to Renato Canova's approach.

I'm sure you will now argue that either Barry is not a valid source - but you won't get more valid; or that the fractional efforts are not understood by all (incidentally the original 'Run To The Top' includes numerous examples of these fractional efforts for distances up to 6m) - as valid as describing a breathe test for a tempo run surely, moreso once you understand the context? ; but there are your examples of the other posters reading/opinion as requested.

Here we go, I will test the water. Bob, If I recall correctly I believe that Arthur put the 60 mins one day and 90 the next was to support recovery. Don't forget that the schedules were written back in the day when athletes had "real" jobs and had to work 8 - 10 hrs a day. I tend to do that with the older guys I am Coaching now. They have "physical" jobs .... Electrician and Painter/Wallpaper hanger.

As some of us stated, quite a few times ; Arthur NEVER wanted to publish schedules as they were "gneric" and not individual ... they were only ever supposed to be a guideline. Because of that it makes it hard to 'argue' with Antonio.

For instance: ( I have written this before !) I saw a schedule that Arthur had written out for one of NZ's Top runners (back in the mid 70's/80's). he showed me just prior to giving it to that athlete. I don't recall detail but it looked nothing like what was published in his books. Yes ! I do recall a couple of "longish" runs.

Problem is that schedule was given to that athlete and was never put out into the public domain.

I also recall sitting in Bill Baillie's lounge when he called Arthur about the training he was doing for the World Masters Champs (1983) .. I did not hear exactly what Arthur said, But then I did do all that work for the next few weeks with Bill after that. I wrote that out in the big thread we did in 04/05. What Bill changed I have no idea .. although one workout did not go as it should have so we canned it and did something similar a few days later. Once again .. nothing published.

More later if this does not stir up a Hornets nest.

Thanks for the answer Kim.

Of course it might stir up a hornets nest, but it seems that every Lydiard thread does that anyway.

HRE, for one, has often mentioned that Arthur did not want to put schedules in the original "Run To The Top".

The hard/easy or long/short pattern has been accepted by a variety of coaches and athletes. I cannot recall that particular aspect of Arthur's ideas ever being attacked on this board. Now that I have written that, it probably will be.

If nothing else I hope this might steer this thread back to the OP's original question.

from bottom of page 9 of this: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training_eng.pdf

Kim,

I've still got a copy of the stuff you were doing with Bill. I recall being surprised that the longest run was 85 minutes. I think you guys had planned one for 90 but knocked it off at 84 minutes or so because it was so humid that day.

I've written here at times that I had schedules from Arthur that almost anyone who "knew" what his training looked like from reading the schedules in his books would say isn't Lydiard training.

I will NEVER forget that run. It was in Cornwall Park on the 8km circuit. Awesome Cross country with everything in it (Hills, Trails, Parkland). For some reason it was unseasonably hot and Humid so we called it a day earlier than we had planned. I can recall being quite tired and slept like a log that night.

gypsy (and others),Maybe in one way Antonio is a lot like Lydiard -- he gives you the pieces of the puzzle one at a time, and it takes many years to complete the puzzle....To the extent I can answer this question (and given past history, I don't speak for Antonio, but express my own opinions), Antonio has already said that since racing combines aerobic/anaerobic components, in a post-Lydiard world, you train both together, at "race-connected" paces, in a progression that works towards target racing times. "Aerobic first" unnecessarily wastes precious time, because you needlessly neglect other important parts of training delaying your ability to compete (and earn money if you are a professional). and also delaying your progression. There is a conflict of philosophies.I don't speak for Antonio, but I have to say I see an injustice against the "Dr. Jekyll" personality of Antonio. It's unfortunate the past history of discussions is clouding his message, but he has some valid points which I think are not being heard. I can understand Antonio's frustration. I'm one of the first ones to say that he oversimplifies, misrepresents, misunderstands, and whatever else, aspects and concepts about Lydiard. But not everything he says is wrong.Not to single out Wetcoast in particular, but in this thread he provides a representative example. In this thread, Wetcoast accused Renato of offending Vigil, Squires, and Schumacher (and many others) who use Lydiard as a "foundation of their program", for daring to suggest something like "Lydiard is of historical importance, but we've made some important changes in the last 50 years -- it's time to stop talking about Lydiard and Snell and Halburg and Magee in the context of training top athletes today". Renato concedes that Lydiard was his starting point -- does that mean it's the "foundation" of his program too? I guess that's another common complaint that every training looks like Lydiard because everyone today uses it as their "foundation". We need to be more precise about what "foundation of their program" really means. What Renato has said before (diplomatically), is that Lydiard forms an important basis, but since 1960, training has not stopped evolving. This is not offensive. But dismissing the changes since 1960 is. Whether they are improvements, and to which magnitude, can be debated, but nonetheless, there are some material differences -- they can not be considered basically the same. One approach is generically described with a balanced combination of "aerobic" and "anaerobic" training, while the more recent approach defines training in terms of paces "connected" to the racing target. Then Wetcoast suggests that Kenyans are already being trained by the same Lydiard principles (so forming a Lydiard group in Kenya to demonstrate Lydiard competitiveness would be superfluous), this seems to me to be as offensive (if not more) to modern successful coaches who used Lydiard (and/or a combination of others) as a starting point, but have made significant changes in how to view and plan training, with top-level success.Lydiard describes training in terms of aerobic development as a base, with anaerobic development put on top, mixes them together, races, then repeats. But Antonio and Renato are saying something much more restrictive and narrow and precise. They are saying that the training of first, second, and third interest (aka. specific, special, and general) must be closely connected to and defined in terms of race pace (Renato says 80% of speed, but his funny mathematics actually gives 83%). Less than 83% means it's not even of "general" interest, but something you do as "regeneration" (or recovery), say the day after a really intense workout. 80% of speed is actually even more conservative than he calculates.OK, hands up -- who understood percentages in school? I thought so. Let's put this in perspective with some real numbers and names. Let's pretend you are "Eddy Lee", and you can run 1500m in 4:00. For Americans, this is equivalent to 4:20.20 for the mile (using Purdy), which is great for high school, but can not be called elite, even in 1960. Now, I have great respect for Eddy Lee, because he reached his stated goal, and he beats my best ever by nearly half a lap, so I don't mean any disrespect towards any sub-4:00 1500m runners in the slightest. But, at the same time let's recall "gypsy's" post where Nobby said "Arthur's runners were doing 52~53 minutes 10-miles in training", as a defense and demonstration of "long and fast". If your goal is to compete at the 1500m in 4:00, then (using Purdy), your 10 mile equivalent time is 52:37.89. 80% of speed for 1500m in 4:00 is 3:20/km pace. 10 miles in 52:37.89 is 3:16.24/km pace. So Nobby's comment of 52-53 minutes is just inside the "modern" boundary of "general" interest for Eddy Lee. Anything slower than 53:39 for 10 miles is outside of "general" interest, and starts to become "regeneration" (something you do the day after an intense workout or race, when you are unable to train harder).Now let's pretend you target a more ambitious, but still sub-elite 3:40 1500m time. That means the equivalent 10 mile time of 47:57 (2:59/km) is close to the boundary of interest (3:03.33/km). 49:10 is the limit. Even 52-53 minutes, as fast as that may seem to those interpreting "long and fast", is outside of general interest for this sub-elite metric miler.Now let's pretend you target a 1:57.33 800m time. That means a 10 mile time of 47:57 (2:59/km) is close to the boundary of interest (3:03.33/km). 49:10 is the limit. 52-53 minutes for 10 miles is way outside of general interest, for this not so special high school athlete.Now let's pretend you target a more ambitious, but still sub-elite, 1:45 800m time. That requires a 10 mile time of 44:00 to be at least of general interest. Anything slower is simply too disconnected from your race pace. Note Haile Gebreselassie's 10 mile (road) world record is 44:23.So you can see, if your philosophy is that training of first, second, and third level interest should be sufficiently connected to race pace, and your race pace for your event is sufficiently fast, spending any extended amount of "aerobic only" training, outside of primary, secondary, and tertiary interest makes completely no sense.Lydiard recommends this kind of training for all 800m to marathon runners. Antonio and Renato says it doesn't make sense to spend any extended amount of time training with paces exclusively of quaternary interest. For some middle distance runners, longer slower runs can even damage performance. Right or wrong, you cannot conclude it's the same thing, in different terms.When we compare "aerobic+anaerobic" to "general/special/specific", there are some material differences:- Lydiard says interval training during base training is a big no-no. Antonio says interval training is superior at aerobic development. The Lydiard "failure" is to not leverage interval training for superior aerobic development. Right or wrong, these are irreconcilable differences. These are not the same. Maybe Lydiard would agree, if the interval training could be called "aerobic", but Antonio is saying something much stronger -- aerobic or not, you must do interval training at a precise pace, connected to your race target, during the aerobic base building phase.- Lydiard has well defined phases of aerobic training, hills, then anaerobic training, before coordination and tapering and racing. The aerobic training, and hill training phases are described generically and universally for all athletes from 800m to the marathon. If aerobic training includes workouts with "race connected" paces, it is purely by chance. If hill workouts include workouts with "race connected" paces, it is purely by chance. If anaerobic training includes workouts with "race connected" paces, it is purely by chance. A modern approach prescribes very precise pace ranges for all phases, rather than "aerobic", then "anaerobic", then "coordination" (which might finally demand specific paces).So when anyone says that modern training is just like Lydiard, they demonstrate a failure to understand these material differences.Now, in a separate but related rant, I will specifically single out Wetcoast's failure as an interviewer, and what looks like unfair treatment of Antonio. In Antonio's interview, you introduce Antonio as a coach whose methods "harkens back to (the) legendary coach, Mihaly Igloi", but on "if we dig a little deeper", shows "shades ... of ... Lydiard". While you followed up on defining the Igloi part, with an external reference to Steve Magness's explanations of Igloi, you seriously failed to follow up on a definition of "shades of Lydiard", nor did you actually connect Antonio's training to Igloi's or Lydiard. I'm left wondering which "shades of Lydiard" you think are uncovered if we dig deeper. In fact, I'm actually wondering what Antonio has to do with Igloi, Lydiard, and Magness at all, since very little of what Antonio said in the interview could be concretely connected to Igloi or Lydiard (or Magness)? They way you introduced it, both Igloi and Lydiard are misunderstood. But once the misconceptions are cleared up, it is not Antonio, but rather Igloi who in fact shows shades of Lydiard, by using interval training to create a balanced combination of aerobic and anaerobic training. Or, if you respect the timeline, it is Lydiard who recognized some kind of aerobic/anaerobic balance that Igloi also recognized before him. At the very least, in the name of journalistic integrity, you owe Antonio and your readers some clarification about which shadows of Lydiard you think surface upon digging deeper, particularly since your interview did not dig so deep into Antonio's training.(What did I say on page 4 -- don't expect me to contribute much more?!?!?)Now I have to stop.

gypsy wrote:

Still waiting on this Antonio.

You are asking new questions but have failed to answer any yourself. What gives?

hi Rek, this turned into a freaking essay. I just started typing and it didn't stop for a while. Hope it's worth reading.I'm not sure how accurately you represent the modern approach, however, it seems pretty clear from what you have said. I wish to go into each of your major points but first i just have to say i am totally against this approach you represented. I come from the Soviet lineage, the ones who invented the entire system that this method is utilising and I dare say deforming. Periodisation and the Principles of Training emanated from this system out into the world and now this non-linear periodisation is some form that has been altered quite substantially from the Soviet system. Initially I blame the German Gerschler. He took the Soviet interval training idea and made it the whole damn training program. In the Soviet system intervals have their place, one cog in the machine, not all the cogs. So the German focused in on the 'powerful' interval effect and soon it was all he could see. It was taken into Eastern Europe and we get an Igloi and later a Kratochvilova. It gets to the US via Igloi and spreads till it now is the dominant collegiate training method, except for more isolated examples like Bowerman who also saw the problem and found a confidant in Lydiard and produced Pre in the opposite way to most of the rest of his coaching peers. Intervals hit Australia through Franz Stampfl and this is opposed by his contemporaries Cerutty and Lydiard both whom the word knows whereas Stampfl, quite successful for at least a few years with each athlete, did not reach the same heights.So we have this Soviet Periodisation where intervals are one part of the process. I guess intervals first appear in the Specific Preparation Phase (2nd) in hill training. Also fartlek appears at this time to being alternating the intensities as well. Prior to this is long running, to your limit, duration crossed with intensity, so the end result was the ability to race for 20mins. If we look behind the methodology of the Soviet system, we find the principles of training, which are so very similar to Lydiard in seemingly all the main ones, apart from one. How deep into the aerobic capacity they went. Lydiard went further. For all the Soviet experimentation they missed this. Their pyramid is correct, it even shows the bottom layer as easily the largest. Yet this did not necessarily translate into practise, as it was given equal weight with the other three phases. This could easily explain why, in the era when they were so dominant across all other event groups, they were poor in the MD and LD, relatively speaking.So Lydiard has the same rhythm and timing of his microcycles to Soviet Periodisation. He has the same Progressive addition of fitness qualities from the base level upwards. He has the same construction of Phases or mesocycles as the Soviet system. Marathon condition is General Preparation where endurance is the primary focus. He has the hill phase which is the same as the Soviet Specific Preparation where you now add strength to endurance which at first makes strength endurance. Then he has the coordination phase, which is the same as the Pre-Competition Phase for the Soviets. Here the preparation training is coordinated together into competition form. The training elements, previous trained independently, are brought together. And the final phase, sharpening, is what Competition Phase for the Soviets is all about. Release all the pressure of conditioning and let the peak rise.You can probably see why i feel such an affinity for Lydiard now. When i looked into his system i saw such a clear reflection of my own former training it was eye opening. It was this very thread where I first discovered Lydiard had microcycles. Now i'm wondering about macrocycles and it does look like he had 4 week ones, but i need more than a 4 week period of his training to see this.--------------------------------------------------------------------Coming back to this modern version of Periodisation that is being shown. For me the Principles of training are the principles of training, end of story. There are no two versions. They are fundamental laws. How they are applied to any specific situation will determine the methodology to be used. So Cerutty and Lydiard for me are looking at the same things, they are looking directly at these principles and exploring them in their own and their athletes training. Yet whilst i believe they were looking in the same way at the human body in action, and they identified the same underlying principles as one another, they had different methodologies. Similar, yet different. One main difference you come across on casual observation is the use of the short sandhills for Percy versus the use of the long hill circuit for Arthur. Arthur lived near mountains, Percy didn't, and in fact in Portsea, it is such a short distance from the back beach to the front beach (the bay side to the ocean side), that there is no elevation. So he used sandhills and created some repetitive circuits taking advantage of longer shallower sandhills and of course the shorter intense version which is more famous. It did take a while to do the shorter 40m version. It wasn’t very far from step to step. So even though we have this difference in usage of hills we can also see that they were both looking at exactly the same thing, adding strength to the endurance of their athletes in this example. It is actually difficult to find the differences between the two. On the surface it looks like there are some but as you dig a little they start to disappear. Just like the hills example there. Another similarity between the two are the thrice weekly main focus training sessions. And three is the only logical number you get to if the principles are observed. If you take the principle of recovery you get a 48 hour cycle (the 2 sleeps is probably the more important factor than the 48 hours). So if you follow this rule then you arrive at 3 in the week. Mon, wed, Fri or Tues, Thurs, Sat. I've seen Sunday used as one of the three days but this is rare. If we look at the principle of recovery more closely we can see it is not an isolated principle, It has two sides. The one most think of is the passive side which says 48 hours is required for adequate recovery. This is a static, unmoving quality. The other side of the coin is the active side. So this leads us to looking at actively assisting recovery so it’s not simply a passive element anymore. This can be worked out methodologically through understanding of the principles but it is difficult. Much easier to simply experience it in training, which anyone who has trained seriously and isn’t a mindless automaton will know. To work this out purely methodologically, without a practical basis in something, would be impossible. Except in the case of where someone brought the practical understanding from another field of knowledge and went through the process of cross-applying it. Just to go back to a practical example of the active side of recovery. We can appreciate, even if we don’t actually know for sure, that easier running has a regenerative/recovery aspect to it. Doing anything at a lower intensity acts to recover you. In a run this happens and over a number of sessions it happens. This missing angle on this is of course the opposite angle. Look in the opposite direction to aerobic capacity development and we find a whole range of activities in the anaerobic side of our MD equation. So we can look at strength, power or speed. These activites, as long as they aren’t done to gross overload, are regenerative activities for the aerobic capacity fatigue. This is definitely counter intuitive to most. But do we feel better or worse after a session of light strides. This is the example most people know of because they have experienced it. But this recovery aspect also can come from endurance bounding or even weight training. Whether this is more of a neuromuscular effect than anything else, would make a good debate. It definitely enables one to train 6 hard sessions a week, as long as they alternate with each other.So this is how we can do strength or speed or power sessions on days alternate to aerobic capacity/power training days. Alternating training in this way not only allows for simultaneous development of different qualities (which is something the modernists are focused on - in their dash to save as much time as possible), it also means that each session has its own recovery or regeneration stimulus as well. Side note - the Soviet system is thrice weekly for optimal development of any quality. Three times a week is optimal development. Twice is simply development and once is maintenance.If the Soviets and Lydiard and Cerutty all think one way, and the modern approach think in the other ,then i know which side i would be trusting if i was a MD athlete. The coaches and coaching system which revolutionised our sport or this modern approach which doesn’t seem to have revolutionised anything, and many would argue has actually slowed our progression down or even sent it backwards. The 800m is clear. It hasn’t been developed since Snell. It’s just been staying at the same level with slow advance which has only occurred due to technology, developments in recovery science and the psycho-social element of aspiring past the previous peak. Citius Altius Fortius, in action is this final element. But it goes so much further. I'm having an email exchange with Nobby and he is giving me all sorts of bits and pieces of information that is relevant to all of this. I'm hoping to collate a whole bunch of them into one post. He doesn't have any desire to come on here. He has been too frustrated in the past. But he has given me a lot of quotes from different coaches about Lydiard, and the list is quite impressive (to me at least). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to ask some questions about what you have said in light of what i just said. The first one is what exactly does race-connected paces meanexactly? I see from Renatos fundamental program a few pages back that he ranges from 15sec/100 in those 300s, through 16sec/100 in the 1000s, 19sec/100 in the fast continuous runs and out to 26sec/100 at 7min/mile pace, with other in between paces also covered. Race pace for an 800m runner is say 13sec/100. So how does race-connected fit into all of this?

I guess materialism is a philosophy. The pursuit of material wealth. I wouldn't think it is a philosophy that should be applied to training methodology. This for me is the worst part about all of this modernist explanation we have received in this thread. And it’s evident in the language used, like your words above 'wastes precious time' as if wasting time is what is actually happening and 'precious' in imagining there is very little of it left. We have so much time it’s crazy. Once you are into the process, right into it, concentrating on it all the time, then it all goes past so slowly. This need to race and make money all the time is the trap. It creates a rushed process. Coaches suddenly lose sight of the balanced situation presented in the Soviet system and feel like they have to cut things out of the training program. What is the first to be reduced/eliminated in this sort of approach? The one deemed most irrelevant. Then the training methodology begins to contain explanations of why that training element is not present anymore. The explanations like this spring up because people are asking 'why are you missing an entire phase mr coach?’. Similar to how i'm asking right now, albeit now in a rhetorical way. So we get these explanations which are pretty much saying – ‘in the modern world we make our training decisions based on making money’. Ok fine - at least this is an honest answer. I’m totally against this way of thinking that is similarly reflected in the US college system, because it also feels short on time and long on competition. The other answer is once aerobic capacity has been developed for a few years no more appreciable gains can be made, so we will just put that training element on the backburner and possibly even forget it altogether. Ok Sure, after about 3 years of development the training effect curve does level off. This is apparent everywhere. And it happens in all training qualities, not just the aerobic. It happens because all things follow this hypotenuse line with its early sharp rise which trails off and eventually levels out into a horizontal line. So it happens anyway we can say. What’s the point of fighting it. Simply because this sport is about the 1%ers and is defined in far smaller increments than 1%. So if we put all this time into other parts of the training equation in order to gain these 1%’s then why not also gain it in aerobic capacity development as well?

Interestingly, this also appears to happen because of human growth and development. Through to the early 20s say 23 on average, growth is still occurring quickly and is having a large effect on performance. It's good to remember this when analysing.

If this whole modern line of thinking is being utilised because of this need to make as much money as possible before the career ends, then i can't accept it. Not because i am being moralistic about greed and money driven thinking, but because this line of thinking leads to an overemphasis on the short term. It hasn't helped that the sport sciences have feuled this because it also is focused on a short term process and can't analyse long term trends and behaviours so well. Since modern training methodology is grounded in modern sports physiology, they act to reinforce each other and give legitimacy to one another other.

Yes but it shouldn't be. So if Lydiard first appeared to put out this idea of building a foundation and now people use foundations it was his idea. So we can credit him with bringing this idea in. Of course it appeared FAM Webster already came across this, in fact he walked to build his foundation from even deeper than Lydiard did. So whatever really. If Lydiard caused to be be spread across the distance world then its his idea. It just doesn't mean at all that they are training Lydiard unless the rest of the programs bears resemblance.

Ok lets try? I won't try at a definition, you seem better suited to this. Instead i will try and outline it conceptually.

Foundation. The very word is important. If we think of natural foundations in the real world we get buildings, which have an underground structure that supports the above ground structure, even though we can't see it. Or to follow an even more natural version we have a tree, and we know how it supports itself from underground, even though we cannot see the root structure, we know it’s there.

So these real world examples require an invisible support for the visible structure. Why is this any different when it comes to the human body? We have a foundation that appears to be invisible, so the sports scientists can’t really look at it, and it is missed by the casual observer and experienced student alike. I contend that our energy system has an element to it that remains invisible to our scientific analysis, but it is not invisible to the self-observer, as these self-experimenters, both Cerutty and Lydiard, came across it and applied it to their methodology. It is easy to say of course that it’s impossible to prove or deny as it is invisible. Yet this is problematic because too many have personal experiences that indicate it’s existence. It took an explorer like Lydiard to find it and bring the idea back so people knew where to go and look. But he proposed an arduous journey, for even though he now pointed the way, each individual still had to take the same journey he ended up with.

Looking at it from another perspective we have the subconscious mind, many times bigger than the conscious, ie the invisible is many times bigger than the visible. We have the iceberg where the visible, supported part is dwarfed by the invisible, supportive part. I'm seeing the same thing present in the human body. We have this aerobic capacity that is quite hard to see. Sure we have identified VO2max, but this doesn’t seem to change much over the lifecycle of an adult athlete, as far as we know. It’s difficult to test elite population groups and these are the only ones testing this hypothesis. So we see aerobic improvement continue, even as VO2max levels out early in the training process. What else continues? Whatever it is we can’t see it all. And even if we could we can’t go around and biopsy an elite athlete every 6 months for 5 years. Or maybe we can? How interesting would it be to have muscle biopsies of Gebreselassie for the last 10 years?

This hypothetical thing I’m proposing, this invisible side to the fitness spectrum is in the same sort of place as the subconscious and the metaphor of the underwater part of an iceberg (not the real iceberg). To find it one has to go exploring very far. Arthur did this. The Soviets explored as broadly as they could perceive, but it didn't go so far as Lydiard did in this aspect of training. They developed the idea of General Preparation training, so they knew of its need just not the depth to which it would be accessed. Their 1000s of athlete, multi-year investigation found the need for this general type of training as the base of the training pyramid. They managed to find everything else. There are no new fundamental changes to training principles since their time, yet they missed this ability to develop aerobic capacity in a virtually unlimited way. If it is not infinite, it surely is from our limited perspective. In any regards the potential of it is far ahead of what we are using as human beings in the 20th/21st century. This is the crux of Lydiardism to me. Fixing the physical decline we have undergone through our lifestyle.

I have to assert that as civilised, westernised human beings we are far removed from our true physical nature. The nature we have had since we were animals, that was partly lost as we became human, that became further lost as we entered civilisation, lost further again from the industrial revolution and now again in the internet age. This is the progressive decline of the physicality in westernised human beings. Take a look at any other species of life on the planet and you will see a superior physical specimen to the human being. Take the average example of any species and it will dwarf the height of human capacity. For humans Bolt is just the next step and he has made a breakthgouth that will define the next level. Before we are dead humans will have probably finished with his range which is down to about 9.50. Then there will be the next breakthrough, the after Bolt breakthrough. More athletes will fill out this new range until it becomes common. Then the next breakthrough. How far this goes isn't a valid question because it is unanswerable. It probably will never stop. We will always evolve and we will always aspire to beat what has been done before.

If we look at westernised humans in this way we can see a huge gap in physicality and i'm not talking about the sedentary human, i mean all of us. Just look into tribal culture and see the massive difference. Just look at the Kenyans, so very tribal in many ways still, living that lifestyle of activity and movement and physical labour. They have not lost this thing we have lost. Arthur saw this and said ok i don't need to be here, i need to be the places where people don't understand this loss. He was helping the world by this stage. He wanted to help as widely as possible i believe.

So you get a 19 year old Kenyan fresh from the Kenyan natural lifestyle. He already has most of his base. He definitely has the underlying 'lifestyle fitness’ covered. It is very easy to train this sort of person because the base is already present. You can put a lot of work into such an athlete and get away with it because of the base (and their mechanics help them survive for longer as well - Knyans move naturally very well). This modern complex training program will work for such an athlete, for two maybe three years. Then even a Kenyan will be damaged by it as it is just too imbalanced. It will take the most balanced athlete and imbalance him to the point of injury/sickness. It is missing an entire phase. It is failing to develop or even properly maintain an entire training element. There is too much focus on aerobic power.

Renato uses the image of a funnel for the application of aerobic power from aerobic capacity. I think this is the correct imagery to use. but it is connected to something else is it not? Say it is connected to a bellows. So we have the air bag which fills with air and then the funnel which allows us to create greater pressure than if it wasnt there. Air bag and funnel and of course the handles which the athlete uses to force the air out of the bag.

So the athlete running is the person pushing on the bag. The aerobic capacity is the bag and the funnel allows the aerobic capacity to be turned into aerobic power.

Why not keep increasing the size of the bag? Or in the other image used increase the size of the jug before it is tipped into that other type of funnel.

Increase the damn bag! Why not? I can't think of any suitable response to that question except 'no answer'.

So we work on increasing the length of the funnel and what happens? We get more power. What if we keep increasing the length of the funnel? Theoretically, we get more and more power. The longer the funnel the more power we get. Let’s go they cry! Goldrush! But there is a problem and easily imagined by the bellows. The bag has stayed the same size and the funnel is really long now. So the question is 'how much extra effort?’ is the runner putting in to push the air in the bag through the funnel. See the problem in this real world example. You overtax the athlete if the funnel length becomes too out of balance or out of proportion with the bag size. But develop a bigger bag 'and' grow a longer funnel and this imbalance is never created. So now we get to whether we can actually keep growing this bag. I argue for yes. The other approach says no.

That in itself is not offensive. Saying Lydiard is irrelevant could be.

There are things which have come to light since Lydiard. There has been an evolution. I can only agree with this, it is not in question in my mind. The scope of that evolution is what is in question. Did we throw away the theories of physics each time it was evolved to a new level? Did we change the principles of physics each time it has evolved? No. The fundamentals are already identified. Sure our conception of them might evolve but the same principles remain. You don't throw them away when you evolve. Einstein didn't throw away Newton when he developed relativity. Newton's laws still operate in our daily lives. Einstein came along and evolved it to the next level but didn't change the laws of physics in the process, he just added his new dimension to it.

So how can we throw away things Lydiard identified, when they have been identified by other infallible sources (Soviets, Cerutty), and are still relevant to us because we are still human beings. The principles are the principles, they only appear to change when humans misuse them.

I don't agree with dismissing the 'changes' that have been made if they fit in line with the principles. If we have a true evolution of understanding then it must be incorporated, to be honest with ourselves it must. But how do we define a true evolution? Rek, you use the word 'changes'. Perhaps we can look at what the changes actually are? I can see one that is relevant to this discussion but i don't know what to call it. So it probably requires a little story.

Bruce Lee is a master of his craft, to the highest degree. He was a revolutionary like Lydiard, in that he evolved a new system seemingly out of thin air. Bruce's system is called Jeet Kune Do and it is the most advanced system of training i have seen and way ahead of what I can imagine. It is like it’s from an advanced generation, somewhere ahead of us. Bruce was far ahead of his time. What Bruce did was synthesize all of the martial arts on the planet into one complete system. This system of development is designed to cover over 80 human attributes in the mental, physical, emotional and spiritual spheres. His training system is the most efficient way to develop all of these attributes in in correct balance.

An identifying quality of this system is that training elements are mixed together in order to develop these attributes. A simple example is the straight punch from western boxing. It has qualities such as following a straight line and its energy has a snap to it. So the force builds up along a straight line ending in a 'snap'. In a training session you would do punching drills for some time until mental fatigue starts to interfere with focus. Then change exercise to stick exercise from one of the Philipino martial arts. This is a circular exercise where the sticks make continuous figure 8 movements as you move around. Somewhat opposite to the straight line of the punching. When you become tired of this switch back to punching. Suddenly the punching has improved. Since 10 minutes before. It is different in a better way. Instantly and without directly training the punch, some other activity assisted the punch to become more refined. How it relates is because the punch isn’t just a straight line it’s actually a slight curve, because whilst the arm makes a straight line as it moves the shoulder makes a curved line when it moves and as it supports the arm. So the circular motion of the stick gives a better feel for the subtle curve in the punch, And since that curve is necessary to develop the snap at the end it suddenly seems to be improved. The first time this is experienced it is s spinout.

So we have Bruce Lee with this idea of crossover training effects and now this is is the predominant form of martial arts training in the Western world. The few training centers i've attended are all doing this and the training is all based in an aerobic environment and include long running as a fundamental of their training. And you can check this yourself, in Bruce Lees's own words "Running is the mother of all exercise" (when talking about his thrice weekly 5 mile runs with his two dogs.)

Let’s forget the aerobic component and focus instead on this idea of 'crossover training effects' by training different elements concurrently. This is what i see as the major advance in modern training. Fortunately it is within decathlon training by default and the difference between your standard decathlon coach and a 'guru' is in the specific intermixing of elements to create the best possible end performance. Like a master chef and a beginner. Same ingredients, different result. An example of this in decathlon could be a common element between discus and high jump which is the rotational element. Train the ability to rotate around your central axis and instantly both events are enhanced. This axis is most clearly defined in track and field in hammer throw, if it is part of the awareness of that particular coaching method. So we find that training some of the basic drills of hammer throw can create this effect we want. To do hammer drills for high jump seems very, very strange until we add in the idea of this central axis.

And with this restrictive, narrow and precise approach we cut away too much of the range of training we need. This range continues developing ALL training elements, instead of stopping the development in aerobic capacity at some point; it also enhances injury prevention and longevity of potential career. We will have to discuss these three ideas, the develop everything/or not, injury prevention and career longevity.

So do we have a point of contention here? Do the two approaches differ on this? I guess it comes down to Antonio's question as to what these fractions mean. We already have an answer that 3/4 corresponds to 90% of HMP. And 7/8 is damn close to it. This is another point of discussion that will help explain related things one way or the other.

If 3/4 is 90% HMP and 7/8 approaching HMP then we have our mysterious missing long and fast run. To be honest it is really hard to imagine Lydiard athletes not running hard on some long runs. Seriously how could they do what they did if long runs weren't also fast. If it was true they never ran fast and long, then how more unbelievable would, for example, Snell's performances be.

I don't get the purdy part of this paragraph. Is it a formula or scale for comparing something across different distances?

Looking at the rest of the paragraph i am struggling to make sense to be honest. Maybe a purdy explanation will clear some things up. The other wondering i have is how the 10miler can be thought of as being specifically connected to race pace. One is general and one is specific. Obviously the 10miler can’t be specific for anyone because it would require an impossible time. So it’s clearly not intended to be a specific form of training when thinking about race pace. When thinking about expanding aerobic capacity it is very specific. Modern training might have realised that it is not specific for race pace and that’s why this sort of training is being eliminated, in favour of long intervals. Why it has to be directly connected to race pace is beyond me. Perhaps the modern effect isn't taking into account the cumulative effect of 60 mins continuous. Perhaps the actual pace ends up becoming irrelevant because of this cumulative effect. So systemic fatigue is causing the workrate to be at the appropriate level, instead of the pace, which is a more arbitrary measurement then work effort anyway, even though work effort or perceived effort as it’s called is totally subjective it still seems to be the least arbitrary measurement to use. The other thing to consider with the 52-53min statistic is that this isn't around a track. It is cross country and appears to include 'hills and hollows' So that might change the calculations somewhat.

I guess the main issue with this is the idea of always needing to be connected to race pace in some way, which I don’t understand.

Yes, if the purpose and function of the longer steady running isn't appreciated adequately, then it could easily be put to one side. If the reasons for needing to compete year round because money must be made are stronger than the need for the linear periodisation type of preparation, then it’s clear which way the training program will be emphasised. The training approach which requires regular competition will emphasise training at that end of the spectrum over the preparation end. And this is what has happened.

The longer slower runs will damage performance if the athlete is taken too far out of balance in this direction. If it is all long slow distance and no sharper running, strength work, power development etc then an imbalance has been created. Since training must be balanced this is not an ideal state to be in. We need to feel out our maximal paces regularly throughout any period of long running. This keeps us in contact with our full physical expression. Like screaming at the top of your lungs can come close to being a full expression of yourself. Always training at 90% and under for example will not allow this full expression to occur. Over time the full expression is lost. Of course reverse this whole idea and we can know that if the base endurance isn’t being trained then it is being lost.

I guess the fundamental difference here between the two approaches is that 'race pace' to keep in touch with full expression is replaced with strides and other activities which allow for this maximum expression, this maximum intensity.

The basic idea is that we want to train ourselves in as close to normal shape as possible. If we suppress ourselves away from this normal mode then we must come back to it before too long. This is not unlike the modern approach when it says we cannot let ourselves get too far from racing mode/race pace. Lydiard (and the Soviets) already take care for this in another way and as a result it is well integrated into their programs. They just don’t feel the need to expend all that energy in trying to maximise this quality whilst there is something else to maximise

From what i gather from Lydiard and what makes sense is that when we have a specific focus we don’t want to be specifically focusing on anything else. So if we are focusing on aerobic capacity and using 3x60 min runs/week as the main tool, then we lose one of these sessions if we do an interval session focused on aerobic power.

Another thing i gather from Lydiard is that aerobic helps the body and anaerobic harms the body. This appears self-evident to anyone that has experienced both. An easy run leaves one feeling good. A hard enough run leaves us feeling bad. After some time the bad goes away as the aerobic system helps you feel good again. So by this basic thinking, and the feelings of being poisoned when lactate is around, surely indicate which way the overall balance should be. We overload on anaerobic we will suffer problems. We overload on aerobic the only problem we will probably face is a slow performance.

And he is right. Intervals are a very powerful tool, and a very dangerous one. This is recognised. Powerful but dangerous. Anything powerful is dangerous if misapplied though. The problem is balance and retaining an anabolic state in the body as much as possible. Sure intervals are more powerful in the aerobic and anaerobic power senses than steady states. But overuse or misuse can result in the entire range of problems coaches face when over training occurs. The problem is over/misuse problems are much bigger in the anaerobic spectrum than the aerobic one.

We definitely disagree on this. The aerobic power intervals occur with Lydaird just not in the preparation phases. Aerobic capacity supports aerobic power supports anaerobic capacity supports anaerobic power supports anaerobic speed. Renato uses the word Support a lot. However, I have to wonder as he doesn’t utilise a linear/progressively developed periodization approach which is all about adding one quality to another. And the lower supports the higher. Yet training all things simultaneously is an approach that rejects the idea that one level is developed prior to another.

If we take an example of anything else which is developed or ‘grows’ on this planet we can observe the principles of growth and development in action. So we take a seedling and compare it to training for the 800m. The seedling requires a specific environment at this stage with specific chemicals, light amounts. sun amounts etc. All at gentle levels these things given to the seedling. At the next stage the seedling is now a young plant and needs different fertilizer, water, sunlight. Later the plant is mature and again does best on a different mix again. As the plant comes to flower and fruit it is enhanced by a different set of variables again. Each stage requires its own variables. One stage occurs after the other. This is natural growth and development. Arthur follows this, Soviets follow this, Cerutty follows this. The modern complex approach does not follow this. It is being unnatural.

Is it irreconcilable? This need to train at race pace all year round is one way to go I guess. I’ve spent the last 2 hours arguing against it, in many different ways. Let us see what you make of what I’ve said, if you or anyone else can read this damn essay.

Ok I agree, purely by chance is the only way for race paces to be undertaken outside of sprints/strides in the marathon development period. I disagree that race paces wouldn’t be achieved in anaerobic training but I don’t know for sure. We would need evidence from someone. Hope you enjoyed my rave.