LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Great thread. As a longtime coah, and one who has had the incredible good fortune to spend some quality time with both men, I'd say you'd do well following either man's training. In one sense Daniels simply took Lydiard's training into the lab and proved him right, then, with new science on his side tweeked and fine-tuned lydiard's theories. If you look at any modern coach's training, from Vigil to Daniels to Wetmore, it will all go back to the late, great Kiwi coach. One thing I always say, as a coach, is that the same principles apply to every athlete, they just apply in different ways. For instance, Daniels' method of running the most intense, shorter speed (with a ton of recovery) early in the season, makes sense for some runners. The theory goes that such running makes the runner much more efficient when he/she switches to VO2max training. It is also a way to reduce injury risk, as the system is not already stressed from many weeks of VO2 and LT training. Lydiard counts more on drills early for this effect, and puts the faster stuff at the end for peaking. I've seen both work very well for different athletes. With my athletes I sort of cheat. I put the "economy phase" first, ala Daniels, but add a lot of very short, but fairly relaxed stuff over the last two weeks before a key race. Read Daniels, read Lydiard, and you'll find the main difference is one of style, not substance. Pick the one that just "feels" right.

Gerry was one of my 26 subjects used in my dissertation research, so I did test him numerous times -- at sea level and at altitude. Gerry and Ron Clarke were two of the most memorable runners I have tested, Lindgren because of his personality (I have always enjoyed his humor -- he would often lean as he went by the finish line of each lap of a test on the track, as if it was the finish, even if he had 3 more laps to go) and Clarke because of his near fear of wearing the necessary equipment and his unbelievable talent (3:03 for the last 1200 meters of a max test on the track -- running beside the car and with the nose clip and head gear on -- still a record under those conditions). I feel so very fortunate to have been able to spend time with so many great runners over the years -- you get to know them differently when the relationship is non-competitive and there is nothing to hide from each other. Honesty is at its highest level.

jtupper,

Some time ago you mentioned that you were working on a book. I believe you brought together many of the athletes that you had tested in the 60's for some kind of pow wow, where you discussed "training methods" then & now and did some re-testing.

Any progress on that project?

I've been a subject in many studies by Jack Daniels. It was certainly fun and worthwhile to be part of the study. Getting the data is essential for the science. But runners often ask me where they can go to get tested. Their hope is to discover something surprising and useful about themselves. I urge them to be part of a study to help science if they can but rarely does an individual learn anything worth the cost of a Max test. Racing and training experience has already told you what kind of a runner you are. Better to save your money.

I wrote a column comparing Lydiard and Daniels in New England Runner in the Jan/Feb issue 2005.

Tom

Link to that article? That would be a great addition to this thread!

Derderian wrote:

I've been a subject in many studies by Jack Daniels. It was certainly fun and worthwhile to be part of the study. Getting the data is essential for the science. But runners often ask me where they can go to get tested. Their hope is to discover something surprising and useful about themselves. I urge them to be part of a study to help science if they can but rarely does an individual learn anything worth the cost of a Max test. Racing and training experience has already told you what kind of a runner you are. Better to save your money.

I wrote a column comparing Lydiard and Daniels in New England Runner in the Jan/Feb issue 2005.

Tom

So much to do and so little time. I do have all the data on the 25-year followup. Most amazing was that all 26 subjects returned for testing (amazing that all 26 were still alive and well enough to do the testing). They had put themselves into 4 groups -- fat and unfit, fat and fit, lean and unfit and lean and fit. Better results by the fat and fit group than by the lean and unfit group, so keep exercising, there is no putting it in the bank -- you must keep at it. Importantly getting back together prompted a few of the not so fit to get back into some training. 3 little tidbits were that one guy who never had over a 148 max heart rate as a younger guy (I always thought I had made a mistake counting in each of his tests) had a 146 max 25 years later (so I guess I was right inthe first place); anopther had a max HR of 186 as a 25 year old and 192 as a 50 year old (so much for 220-age), and one guy had a VO2max of 78 as a 25 year old and 76 when 50 years old. Maybe I should get to writing it all down for publication. I guess that's something to consider in retirement; but what if you don't retire?

BeamonStreet wrote:

Link to that article? That would be a great addition to this thread!

Derderian wrote:

I wrote a column comparing Lydiard and Daniels in New England Runner in the Jan/Feb issue 2005.

Tom

The magazine doesn't put the article on their web site but I will see if I can get it on the Greater Boston Site.

Tom

The Lydiard/Daniels article should be on the Greater Boston Track Club site now. I hope it is useful to the discussion. The illustration is fun.

www.gbtc.org

Tom

btexpress

You make a great series of points about application of the two training approaches, given the requirements of the individual athlete. In the IAF "Millenium Marathon Book", Canova and Arcelli make the distinction between the "enduring" (% of Type I/slow twitch muscle fibers close to 90) and the "fast" (two-thirds Type I and one-quarter Type IIa/fast-twitch oxidative fibers) marathoner and how each should be trained slightly differently. As Arthur would have said, "use the same ingredients, in different amounts and at different times". In my view, Dr. Daniels--who I was honored to hear speak at the Distance Coaches Classic in Flagstaff 10 days ago--and Arthur would agree on >95% of the ingredients necessary for distance running success; yet, each man might want to see them included in varying amounts at different times in the execution of the recipe that each would have concocted for an individual athlete.

Along these lines--and to comments jtupper has already made on this thread--the art of coaching is all about individual application of a hard-earned knowledge base. Arthur had little formal scientific training; and, was the King of Trial and Error (most often with himself as the subject). I'll bet Dr. Daniels would agree that since the scientific method depends upon trial and error, as a coach, he has learned more from errors made than in successes won. I think he might also agree that the biggest difference between he and Arthur is that his formal training allowed him to put a finer point on current terminology and the fine lines of the physical system than Arthur might have (at least during the 1950s and 60s). But, like Arthur--as he said at the clinic in Flagstaff--he would tell us all that it is experience with the athlete him/herself that leads to the greatest insights on training.

Nobby, I hope I am not getting too far ahead of things on the Foundation mission and so forth when I say this, but . . .

An important objective of the Lydiard Foundation will be to both understand the current realities of coaches and athletes in high school, college, post-college, etc. and communicate how the fundamentals of the Lydiard Method can be applied to the demands of their individual programs. Will a H.S. team trying to win their league, qualify for their State championship, and get invited to Nike Team Nationals be able to use a Lydiard-style approach, given that they will race up to twice per week for 8-10 weeks? Maybe . . . after all, Dr. Daniels discussed how a coach might apply his training approach/formula given a CC season heavy on racing. And while he told the assembled group what he recommended the coach do, it was clear that this was not an optimal training situation and he would have preferred to prepare the athletes otherwise (with a more balanced approach).

So, Lydiard or Daniels? I'd take either one; because, I know that each would consider MY situation when devising a training plan.

Bravo!

btexpress and jonas : Great stuff !!!!!!!!

Tom:

Enjoyed your article. I liked the line about Arthur’s reply to “rest day”. I remember him saying that, if you absolutely don’t have any time to train, “even if you go out and jog for 15 minutes, you’re still winning.” When you look into it microscopically, there probably wouldn’t be much benefit to it. Bad science (well, perhaps not particularly that “bad”)? I sure was quite inspired by that comment. The thing about Lydiard is that he was a motivator. The story was repeatedly told that, after talking to Lydiard for 15 minutes, all you want is to get out and run.

Runner’s World contacted Lorraine Moller about “a 10% rule” that was supposedly preached by Lydiard. Lorraine passed it on to some of the Lydiard disciples. My take was that Lydiard would have never put it in a “rule” dictated by specific “numbers” like this unless someone squeeze it out of him (“How about increasing the mileage by 10% a week?” “Well, that sounds reasonable.” “Okay, Lydiard said increase the weekly mileage by 10%.”). Barry Magee, on the other hand, came back and said that Arthur would have just gotten you onto a long run, no excuse or whatsoever. I don’t know how much Peter Snell was training in high school but when he joined Arthur’s stable at the age of 19, he basically put Snell onto running a 22-mile Waiatarua pretty much right a way. It took him 3 and a half hours for the first time and he broke down in tears afterwards (sorry, Dr. Snell, for keeping reminding the rest of the world of this story!). Perhaps scientifically not a sound advice but you can’t argue the results.

Quite a few letsrun.com thread readers, for some reason, got mixed up the Lydiard program with John Molvar’s training thesis (he clearly states that it’s only his “interpretation” of the Lydiard program). While I have no intention of attacking the Molvar system, in fact, I think it’s a quite sound program with adequate aerobic development followed by systematic speed training; the part I have most problem with is this 9-week build-up to 100 miles a week. Arthur would have NEVER put anybody in such a number-oriented schedule. You would either take your time and carefully build up, or just get up and run 100 miles a week. As “scientifically inadequate” as it may be, that’s what shapes up all “Arthur’s Boys” including the original joggers.

As Tom pointed out in his article, both Lydiard and Dr. Daniels knew where the devil lies. No matter how scientific the schedule may look, be it the Daniels’ formula or Lydiard’s day-to-day schedule, if you don’t, as Arthur often said, the schedule is not worth the paper it’s written on.

By the way, Tom, you did get the check, right?

Kim:

If you want this thread not to get buried among all the Webb’s running strategy threads, you need to get moving, buddy!

Daniels coached me for two years. Pr's in everything from 5k to marathon, but training is quite intense. He is an excellent physiologist, and can tell you exactly why you are doing what you are doing in training...don't know Lydiard's training, so can't comment.

Yes, Nobby, I got the check for what I paid to USP for the Lydiard book shipping costs.

It is a good thing that coaches write books about what they have learned in training athlets. But the danger is that when the thinking coaches write down what they have done it becomes formulars and programs that become dogma to their readers. That faith replaces thinking about each athlete's unique, daily situation. Stopping thinking and jamming an athlete into a program is not what the coaches had in mind.

Coaching pre-teens is a very different thing from coaching high school kids who all emerge from the same building every day at the same time and are mostly interested in each other to college runner who are bound to a season and a schedule and NCAA rules compared professional runners who are totally dedicated.

In my case I coach club runners who have jobs, families, or graduate school in different schools in the Boston area. Running is at best # 3 in their lives. Their abilities and ages vary hugely. They don't start all together at the beginning of the school year.

That and we live in a congested city. I have been looking for a 22-mile Waiatarua loop in Greater Boston.

So the coach must be eclectic, stealing a little here, a litte there, and smushing all together under the ever changing circumstances.

So back to the original question of this thread, who you'd rather have as your coach? Lydiard and Daniels are there everyday along with the ghosts of all the others, Squires, to Bowerman to ....I could go to my bookshelf and type in all their names: Alf Shrubb...to Zatopek!

Tom

Lydiard came to Canada in the 70's for some clinics. BR brought him over. HodgieSan I met Vinnie and some of the boys at Bloomsday in 84 and 85. Great post. Arthur was a great guy. Kim -Nice to see the Kiwi's coming on again.

Cheers

Raally love this stuff. I could not agree more with Tom, even though I am a "Die Hard" Lydiard person. My book shelves are full of Running Literature.

Sometimes I veer away and try something with my athletes But always right behind me is that voice of Arthur's. "Why are you doing that, What is the purpose of the Training"

I found he gave/gives me a "level, thinking head and common sense".

In my conversations with him he talked many times of other Coaches he talked with and the ideas or Philosophies they had.He got a great "buzz" out of talking with similar minded people.

He had huge respect for the likes of Bud Winter and as has been mentioned here before, the ideas of "leg speed and ankle flexibility" were all reinforced by Winter 40 years ago.

An aside on Waiatarua. The "old course" is becoming more and more "suburbanised'. Athletes running it have to take real care because of the huge traffic volume on the Roads.

There are now houses all the way up the "Big Hill" and on the Down ward side the same thing has happened.

It was inevitable.

Auckland athletes drive further out of town to get a "long run".

No such problem here in Rotorua. Other than some of the Farmland that Jack Foster ran on being subdivided, nothing has changed in Running courses in 50 years.

Arthur said it is the best place in the World for conditioning distance runners and used to have large groups of Europeans coming down here in their winters.

Nick Willis is thinking along the same lines, and wants to bring a number of athletes down here to train just prior to the Commonwealth Games.

HRE will be here in about 10 days so I maybe able to show him around and also we intend to keep this thread going by doing some pieces together.

Keep it up team.

Kim,

Interesting about all the sprawl and traffic. The other night in Boston along the river I ran with my women's team. (The men were far ahead.) The traffic noise was deafening, smelly, and compounded by the diesel exhaust of locomotives and I wondered if I was doing myself good or harm.

It is tough for athletes with jobs to endure a 45 minute commute only to go in the door, change and go back out into the traffic but without a steel frame, seat belts, and airbags. Death at your elbow is not what I imagined on the Waiatarua.

Tom

Tom,

Actually much of the famous Waiatarua has always been in the Suburbs of Auckland.

When Arthur started doing the Course in the early 50's he still had to run through the suburbs of Avondale, New Lynn, Kelston and Glen Eden before he got to the "Hill".

The photos you see in "Run to the Top" and Halbergs "Clean pair of Heels" are taken within 5 miles of each other at the top of the Hill, Which is actually Waiatarua.

The areas they are taken in are still pretty much Bush covered but Suburbia encroaches.

As the run descends from "Waiatarua" it goes through the suburb of Titirangi and then New Lynn and then follows back to Avondale and Wainwright Ave in Mount Albert where Arthur lived at that time.

Problem now is the course is the same but there is now major intersections to cross and with 7 day a week shopping and Malls in New Lynn and Kelston you can see the problem with traffic.

Even 30 years ago when I did Waiatarua's from Bill Baillie's house, we would leave at 7:00 am to beat the traffic.

Jut recently there has been a push to really encroach onto the Waitakere Ranges (hills) of which Waiatarua is part.

Luckily there has been a huge protest about keeping what is there as it is and I believe (I could stand corrected) that Arthur was a member of the group that is putting forward information to "Keep the Waitakere's Green". Many prominant Auckland citizens are part of the group so hopefully they win.

I'm sure Kim already knows this but there will be a race held in honor of Arthur Lydiard on September 3rd (in a couple of weeks) around the original Waitakere course. Here's the website and there's a nice map to show the course.

http://www.totalsport.co.nz/events/legend/index.php

Tom, perhaps we can arrange to bring a bunch of runners from Boston next year to participate???