Lydiard Imitations

Lydiard did not use those terms correct - which was not unusual at his time and is unfortunately still common today.

Part of the problem is: It is not that easy to define what is aerobic training and what is not. Does anaerobic training start, when the anaerobic engery contribution is more han 50%? Than nearly evry pace above 800m Race pace is aerobic.

Or does anaerobic training start if you go faster than some threshold pace? Important to add: According to Tim Noakes there ist no such thing as a lactate threshold phenomenon.

Even with such a definition, Lydiards Strides in the base training have a significant anaerobic component.

Even the faster aerobic runs do use the "anaerobic system" to a certain part.

So maybe it really would be better to get away from that kind of classification. It mights not be of much use to divide training into aerobic and anaerobic today.

Surely we need to follow certain rules in general training. But surely the most important rule can NOT be: "Don't go anaerobic!"

Maybe a sane rule would be: "Don't stress your body AND mind so much in general training that you will not be able to stress yourself even more in the following phases."

Even in modern training, it is all about balance - something that was also very important to Lydiard.

About balance in a certain phase and about balance in the whole build-up for a season and a whole professional career.

And of course, the desired balance depends on the length of the build-up which depends on the goals. And in the case of most professional runners the goals are quite different today than 50 Years ago, because there are many more useful competitions.

80% of the speed of what race? You cannot take the percentages of speed of marathon training and apply this to 800m Training.

80% of 1'52 800m Race Pace is 2'55/km and this is NOT the speed "regeneration", not in Renato Canova's Training philosophy and not in any other training philosophy I know of.

Maybe Renato wrote something like: 80% of the threshold pace ... which might be a more sensible guideline.

80% of 2:12 Marathon Race Pace is about 3'55/km and this is about the speed of regeneration for some, most likely for Renatos marathon runners. (For some runners it might be slower because they still lack general endurance or because they are simply used to running slow).

Sorry for using the metric system and for any language mistakes, I'm from Europe and English is not my mother tongue. (Strangely, i can understand really well what people like Cabral and Canova want to say while some native speakers appear to have some problems.)

C

gypsy

What you say take us to the question of the meaning of similarity and difference on the training method.

Let´s start with philosophy and religion and move to training history and training method after.

They say we are all son´s of God – might be what you mean by God and if you accept it . This is absolutely common and absolutely similar among us, all human beings. Consequently we are all sisters and brothers from ten same source/root. We are all similar. But in the other side science says that we do all some parts of the genetic code that´s similar – even similar to the monkey, but each one of us got a different genetic code. Clones are just artificially, not natural. Therefore we all do issues of similarity in every physical, mental, etc. However the science says that we all got issues of difference.

The question here it´s the interpretation of what´s similar and what´s different, be human beings, be the training method. Of course that every training method, namely the distance training method, each one got some similarity with every other one. However in the debate of training define and training discrimination, and when we face one training relate to every or each other the point of stress and expression and what that´s subject of analysis and debate it´s not what is similar but what is different.

I feel funny when I read some past posts since many years ago, that Lydiardists tries to say that Coe and Martin (the training of Seb Coe among others runners) it´s similar to Lydiard, included I guess that I read that Mr. Coe when he was alive he was member of the Lydiard Foundation, and for that reason he is considered a “flat” and an argument for the side of Lydiardists to show that Coe and Martin training is similar to the Lydiard one. This is typical from the Lidiardist strategy, quite demagogic, an attempt to let us think that everything is similar or influenced or equal to the Lydiard training, what is not.

It´s on this line of strategy that Mr. Wetcoast always sees Lydiard training every-present or omni-present in every other training. However what is relevant in each training method, in each training coach is the part that is different, because it´s that different parts that is the coach individual signature, the coach authorship of each coach and not what is similar.

Of course that I stress the interest of the aerobic system as distance training approach. Who doesn´t ? Renato doesn´t ? Yes he does, Gresheler didn´t ?– yes he did. Igoi also did. Zatopec that at his period did build up his one different training, in part without knowing and with the method of trial-and-error, his training did stress the importance of the aerobic training and volume training. James LI doesn´t ? Yes he does. The stress of the aerobic training is quite similar to every training method, namely the present ones, when from the 50s and on, Lydiard, van Aaken, Fracinetti, Igloi, Cerutti and many others, some based on the trail and error by the field training and experience and cases of study, some others through the advance of physiology on characterize the need of distance training, they all stress the importance of the aerobic training for the distance runner.

However the training format (intervals, long runs, mileage volume etc) as well as the training percent and training frequency among the training schedule, what we might resume in the EXTENSIVITY and INTENSIVITY (pace over distance or mileage/volume over intensity) it is what is done quite differently by each one of the coach each one of the runners, and while all do see the interest of the aerobic training and the aerobic condition, not all do agree how many miles, how fast, in what kind of frequency that interesting aerobic training shall be done and this is what really matters, the part of difference, not the part of similarity.

For example Imagine we all play on lottery, but the number s are different for most of us, and that difference leads to different results. One or two win the lottery and most don´t while among the ones that win and the ones that don´t are similar numbers of among them probably.

I said that Aerobic is an important part of my training. But what Mr. Wetcoast doesn´t realise or understand it´s that THE WAY (the formula) I do and the way I prescribe the aerobic training is quite different than what Lydiard does.

I said that I understand Igloi training and that out of what some they say they don’t , including Mr. Nobby that posts that he doesn´t, and I guess that is true that Igloi influenced by Zatopec, as Lydiard is influenced by Zatopec. But what part of the Zatopec/Igloi influence Lydiard takes or gets? Not aerobic training to able the shape condition improve done with interval training, not aerobic training done by Zatopec pace intensity, but the part of the influence that Lydiard takes it´s mileage volume to improve aerobics. I remember that Zatopec did the kind of training that´s resumed by twice a day intervals, or instance AM- 40X200m with 200m active recovery and PM – 20-30-40X400m with 200m recovery what means up to 24k daily with 16k active jog and might sums 32k to 40k by day, EVERYDAY on. The same with Igloi, not so many mileage but faster pace however. As you might understand Lydiard got influence form Zatopec but it´s not by the side of aerobic intensity, or aerobic done by interval training but by the aerobic training done by extensive mileage.

What is relevant among Zatopec and Lydiard or Igloi both trainings it´s not that both do aerobic, but just the mileage stuff that Lydiard does by other kind of variant daily continuous runs (long runs once in a while) and not intervals and mileage and not intensity. What is relevant it´s the difference not what´s similar.

Going back to my interview. What is written as intro – it´s not my writing – read what is written on that intro.

http://www.flotrack.org/article/6665-Antonio-Cabral

Magness writes, “The key to the Igloi method of training is not in looking at intervals vs. distance, it's looking at what the actual workouts accomplished”. Antonio Cabral, as you will see during this interview, prescribes interval training, with an eye for what the intervals accomplish, just as Igloi had done.

Magness adds, “Igloi manipulated the intervals to create both aerobic and anaerobic adaptations. The basis of the system is running by feel and progression”.

The latter comment is a very Lydiard-like approach, ala, “knowing thyself” or as 4-time Olympian Lorraine Moller recently wrote in an issue of Running Times Magazine, “Becoming a Body Whisperer”. As Moller wrote, "The Principle of feeling-based running, one of the five principles that define Lydiard training..."

Magness continues, “The Igloi system is based on running at different levels of effort (easy, fresh, good, fast good, hard, very hard)”.

What we do know about the two systems are the differences. What is often misunderstood the most, are the similarities between the two often misunderstood methods of distance training.

Of course that Steve Magness, what is says is right, but what he says is the irrelevant part, the irrelevant connection, because I I try to show, it´s the format, how-is-done and not the principles, or to say it´s in the difference and not the similitude what is important, and what turns on relevant one training from another, because different formats leads to different results. Ther´s one substantial reason why Lydiard did produce fast runners than Zatopec, out of the talent. The reason it´s because he uses a different way to treat and train the aerobic condition, as ther´s one reason why modern coaches do got better results than what Lydiard did. Among other reasons that´s the reason they treat and train the aerobic condition differently than what Lydiard did.

But Mr. Magness and Mr. Wetcoast they don´t see things that way. It´s a pitty they don´t undersatnd that on diffrence, even a short cut diffrence that is what´s relevant and important.

Anyhow, i´m not responsible for what I said in that interview, but i´m not responsible for the introduction that Mr. Wetcoast decides to include with Magness and Moller poor references. I know why he quoted that persons, it´s not hard to know, but this is not the subject of debate.

I guess i should just repeat myself and add this. Your latest and best politicians answer to completely avoid any real methodological discussion is annoying enough. We are on page 12 and you agreed to the debate on page 1. 12 pages of avoidance tactics Antontio.

But things are more annoying than just that aren't they. You are constantly hypocritical. Let me find a few examples.

But this is precisely what you are doing Antonio. This very speech, with its political content, is your latest "fait-divers".

How many times have you said this but we are on page 12 and the debate has not begun.

Seriously why are you here? This thread was to discuss Lydiard, yet your very first post was bulging with your own methodology. Yet despite that fact, you have the audacity to say this as an excuse for not debating your own methodology.

So you can see the problem. After i started this thread you jumped in headfirst with your own methodology and some pre-existing negative attitude towards Lydiard which hits me in the face. You are the one that started the comparison, if you want to get technical about it. Notice how you did that and how you are now trying to stop the comparison? Something backfired for you and you had to beat a hasty retreat.

Please go away if you aren't going to be straight up and honest with all of this. If you can't answer my questions then that's fine. They are pretty tricky and quite specific. Just don't be hypocritical so much, it just gets in the way of this whole discussion. There are many people who have posted that seem to known things about Lydiard that i don't. I want to learn about them. You are just getting in the road of this process for me and for others.

Can you not see this?

gypsy

All the distance events shorter than 2000m-3000m flat, what is the limit of aerobic pace, since that 800m, 1500m/mile, up to 2000m (not olymopic distance) the runneers exceeds the VO2max. shall be seen by a different aerobic approach than the aerobic distances from 3000m to the marathon or ultra-long 100Kms !

This is another aspect that Lydiard method doesn´t respect, his fault.

For example, following your 800m example. the 800m runenrs doesn´t need Lactate aerobic runs on his training. he doesn´t need that 2:55 "best aerobic pace" that 80% o0f 1:52 is the calcul. Do you understand ?

This is my opinion, not Renato, remember this. the duiffrent treatment and diffrent training that 800m to 2000m (let´s say 3000m) needs, it´s the main reason why i think that different distance events demands different training approach and diffrent aerobic training aproach. But Lydiard treats the aerobic block/phase equal for 800m runenrs as well as 5000m, 10000m, marathon runners, and he prescribes 100miles, the same aerobic pace, for all long runs what is a mistake. the 80o0m runner doesn´t need to train at his "best aerobic pace" either. He needss to trauin aerobic but slower/easy than his best arobic pace and then lots of fast training as the marathon specialist don´t.

Otherwise, if it true what Tim Noakes says, then ther´s no need of LT runs. But since it´s not true what Noakes says about lactate threshold, no one of the Noakes lactate theory could prove by evidence his theory, then for the sake of method, the distance runners might train at LT pace once in a while if they want to porgress his aerobic condition. Sorry, on that issue of LT i´m on the side of Lydiard !

Now, don´t take my last sentence to profit to quote me that i´m similar to Lydiard !

DerC wrote:

Sorry for using the metric system and for any language mistakes, I'm from Europe and English is not my mother tongue. (Strangely, i can understand really well what people like Cabral and Canova want to say while some native speakers appear to have some problems.

C

While i don´t write on LR.com on my miother language what i know about distance runs and methodology and physilogy and biology it´s enough to understand almost everything. I know more than many ion this board, and now say that i´m arrogant.

About Renato, he is not the higher coach category from IAAF as well a coah with skill and lots of experience. Hhe knows about sports and athletics more than most of us togheter. most of all the american coaches togheter. This doesn´t mean that i´m a Renato clone or that i agree withn all that he says, but i see he knows what he talks about, something that i don´t see in others of this board.

HRE

Thank you very much to post this one post.

This is one very interesting subject of debate about Lydiard that i hope i will be able to post. This is not distant to that Mr. Wetmore question to Renato "take 50 kenyan runners coached by Renato or one other modern method and take opther 50 kenyans coached by Lydiard" who would run faster". Not literally, but it´s this idea.

I want to post about this since a long time ago. I will get back to this issue of debate.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

This is another aspect that Lydiard method doesn´t respect, his fault.

SLANDER!!!

Speak to a lawyer Lydiard Foundation, please stop me having to read this stuff.

I don‘t know if 2‘55/km is best aerobic pace for that kind of runner – I never wrote that. I just wanted to point out that 80 % race pace is a different kind of intensity for an 800m runner than for a marathon runner. That was my point.

I totally agree with the different approach for distances that different.

Again I agree with you.

That is no stringent logical conclusion. The pace of these runs might benefit the training even if there was (is) no lactate threshold. I‘m sure you can name other reasons why these kind of runs can benefit a lot of runners.

E. g. for a male elite half marathon runner, the LT Pace is around his half marathon race pace. So LT runs can be specific training. There is no need for pseudo-scientific reasons to advocate training at race pace.

Why should I? May be you take me for someone else: I am NOT a lydiardist, I even think that the religious cult of Lydiard followers is ridiculous.

Why should I? There is no shame in knowing what you know, but there might be shame in not knowing what you don‘t know … you might know the most famous sentence of that ancient philosopher Socrates.

If you really were arrogant, you would not answer me. If I were really arrogant, I would not answer you.

There are others who know what they are talking about. I don‘t think you want to say that only Renato and you belong to that category, or do you? Maybe I would call THAT arrogant …. ;)

But there are many around on this board, and I think that is a pity, they do not want to know. They want to believe. You may know that alien poster with the picture of the alien and „ I want to believe“ on it. If you put a picture of picture of Lydiard on it, you might have a nice metaphor for how many Lydiard fanboys act on this board.

Greetings

C

It seems that you anticipate part of my answer ! But I got something more to say.

First of all, let´s forget Renato and Renato paces, or my pace or whatsoever because what I (we) try to investigate and take a starting point it´s accurate Lydiard, because as you might understand ther´s no way to relate Lydiard method to Antonio one else if we can´t define with some precision how he did, how he did prescribe.

Besides no one read me that I say that my aerobic pace it´s longer and faster than Lydiard, this is of the responsabilitry of Renato, as no one else reads me to say that “Lydiard did long and fast” because I don´t know what´s Lydiard aerobic pace definition and no one really knows. We know that Lydiard defines it as aerobic, but since that are several levels/zones of aerobic pace we really don´t know what Lydiard does prescribe as daily pace, every attempt to define Lydiard aerobic pace it´s speculation. Lydiard aerobic ? Yes, what´s the daily pace, what´s he want to mean by best aerobic pace at accurate pace, we really dobn´t know, no one really knows despite that I read the Lydiard disciples attempts to define it.

Let´s see my opinion and why I refute your last reply without try to deny your source.

Let´s trust that your source of information it´s legitimate and trustful, it´s from Lydiard the man himself what he asksMr. Barry Magee to run. I have no reason to doubt that you bring trustfull information.

Point one. Let´s move back and read SmithStn first post.

He says that Lydiard “…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.”

What you say about Barry Magee did isn´t not a) b) c) SmithStn items

Basically what Magee did is to run some miles (long ok!) but you don´t know what the pace really is to Magee talent and Magee PB race pace or Magee aerobic condition.

Point 2. On my first post of this thread I did insist on the fact that nobody knows estimate what´s Lydiard aerobic paces, since mostly is done by feeling without pace control (typical from Lydiard) sometimes at what Lydiard defines as “best aerobic pace”, but since we don´t haven´t Lydiard estimate what´s this pace really indeed, it´s impossible to be methodological accurate what pace he wanted, and consequently every attempt to define it it´s weak characterization.

Point 3. The same comment fits on Lydiard ¾ ½ whatever pace is defined by this fractions. No one was able to define what he wanted to mean by that factions of pace or pace percents. Eventually he wants hard but threshold pace not all-flat out efforts, because he taught that is not important to define the pace. Eventually he thinks that 100miloes is important to define but the pace it´s not of such interest to define. He could be right, but what this results it´s that no one really knows what´s are that paces all about. On this same board I read different attempts to define that Lydiard pace percent. It results that Lydiard training in many aspects it´s vague, undefined. Might be that it´s this that attracts some people and they love it. But training methodology deals with accuracy and training define and training systematization, not with vague undefined out of chrono and pace control.

Point 4. Finally what you say, the 2 things you say Magee and the schedules of the book “Run to the Top”. I´ve said this, I go to say once again. Single cases of exception, single cases of study, that can´t be prove of training methodology. We all know that as a concept, Lydiard prescribes that the huge amount of the training of the aerobic block shall be “the best aerobic pace” at the faster pace admitted. Might be that in one case or another runner he goes out of his own training define, the main core of his training to prescribe custom training. But what lasts as training method isn´t the exception but the rule, the norm. Lydiard training can´t be define by what one runner does or what once in a while someone does.

DerC wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:

[quote]Antonio Cabral wrote:

Otherwise, if it true what Tim Noakes says, then ther´s no need of LT runs.

That is no stringent logical conclusion. The pace of these runs might benefit the training even if there was (is) no lactate threshold. I‘m sure you can name other reasons why these kind of runs can benefit a lot of runners.

E. g. for a male elite half marathon runner, the LT Pace is around his half marathon race pace. So LT runs can be specific training. There is no need for pseudo-scientific reasons to advocate training at race pace.

C

Excuse me if what i said doesn´t fit to comment in your training ideas. YOu see, when i post, you or everyone else it´s not as important that i just comment for one person read. Even in the case i address my post to one person, it´s just for better identification what kind of arguments i reply, not that you or everyone elose is so important. From that my kind of replies, and since that the main issue it´s Lydiard imitation, i did profit your posts and what you say on your post to answer what was been the typical comments and the main comments on this board. Just imagine that i don´t imagine who you are, as you might know who i am.

One thing is certain. I was the first one on this board to allow the Lydiardists among others the interest of race pace specific trainig something they did refuse. AS far i remember I was the first one to allow people to the interest of trainig individualisation by different fiber type. You, sorry, i don´t know who you are yet, that´s not that it matters, but you might understand that i post for everybody, not just for you !

I insist. This would be an interesting issue of debate. At this point my opinion is suported by some recognized physiologists as well as methodologists.

I repeat. If the LT doesn´t existed s Noakes pretends , it would be useless to train at LT pace, or what is defined by LT pace right or wrong since Noakes don´t recognise the existence of that physologic phenomena. In my and many others opinions he didn´t a trustful prove yet that LT doesn´t exist. This would be for me an interesting debate but not on this thread. However, somehow you wrote part of my argument, the reason why ther´s no need of LT training if LT doesn´t exist. As you said LT training (what is meant by that) is at the same time, generic training for a 1500m runner, special pace for 10k or specific pace for the HM.

Therefore, if the LT doesn´t exist the two main paces that would matter woould be generic (aerobics and fast anaerobic alactic) and specific pace (race pace extensive pace) and not special pace (what is defined actually by LT LTp, AT or even MaxLass) that would be useless if the LT doesn´t existed.

Just 1 more comment, and i hope that i hope this time fits on your comment. You say that "...There is no need for pseudo-scientific reasons to advocate training at race pace." I really needed to know what you mean by "pseudo- science" but to me ther´s no need of science at all to avocate training at race pace.

BY teh way, something that i read from Mr. Noakes Tim Noakes it´s just pseudo-science catch as academic rocket science, despite some might think that is rich science and that is he one good physiologist etc. Just my opinion, i can´t debate in one post, it wouldn´t be a serious debate, on one posts and on this thread but i want to let you know either.

Finnaly it´s good to see that in some points i don´t pray on the desert about my Lydiard comments. Like the Little Prince of tefrench Antoine-Saint-Exupery might be that i fall on the desert from airplane and i did discover one little boy, or one star that shines.

Straight and quick resume.

The “arrogant “comment or that “don´t made me one Lydiard” it´s not direct to you, it´s one transversal comments for the one(s )that say that my training is similar to Lydiard, what is a joke that after so many my posts they say or think that my training is similar to Lydiard.

Antonio Cabral wrote:“arrogant“

Yes you are. So blindly obnoxiously arrogant.

Are you an addict? Or are you insane?

DerC,

These are good points. I said it before. With aerobic/anaerobic, forget everything you know about oxygen, lactate, lactic acid, glycogen, paces, energy contribution.... This is what confuses everyone today. When we talk about Lydiard, and how he understood and used the terms, he measured it with "arterial blood pH". If you want to know how anaerobic your training was, measure your blood pH in your earlobe. It's simple, measurable, and relevant. You don't need to do this often (or actually at all) to guess which kinds of workouts are good anaerobic workouts (because they combine high volumes of high intensity). No need to guess lactate thresholds, or debate if "aerobic capacity" intervals are run at "anaerobic" pace.

And to answer "what pace", modern athletes today have 1 event (or maybe 2) that they want to specialize in. If you were Snell, your event was the 800m, and 1500m. "Race pace" is what you want to do for that race (or those races). As I showed before, according to the modern training, running 10 miles in 52 minutes is simply too slow to be beneficial for the 800m, because it is much slower than 80% of his speed for the 800m or 1500m.

Wow,

I always think I write a long post, and your response is always 3x longer. I'll try to answer some of your questions, but I'm not speaking so much for modern training, as trying to highlight some of the main differences, so that others can decide how it fits them.

One point you harped on quite a bit is the money, and training short term gains for long term. But when you are a professional, your job is to compete. If the choice is to prepare for 6 months to compete for 1 week, or prepare for 3 months and compete for 8-9 months, professionals have to work. But Antonio claims that not only does a modern approach get you race ready, it's actually better at it. I have to wonder though the same question. Now in Antonio's "2 kinds of runner" threads, certainly Mamede and Lopes had great success and relatively long careers. However, what I see with Kenyans, is they have some incredible "depth", and it's rare to see a Kenyan make a long term career out of succeeding. I have seen a suggestion, when Kenyans start making money, they build a house, and they have money for their family, so their life focus changes. But I also wonder to what extent they are being pushed hard to succeed, that leads to short term success, then injuries, then retirement.

The periodic debate centers around these questions:

- Is a 3 month period of "aerobic only" development *needlessly* neglecting other systems. That is how do we rate it? Is it helpful? Does it harm? Is it neutral?

- The opposite question is, does year round "complex" training (with periodic modulation) *needlessly* overstress you? Does it help? Does it hurt? Is it neutral?

I mentioned "Deek" before. What did he do under Clohessey? They like Lydiard's ideas about training, but abandoned the periodization for a "complex" training approach, so that he could race year round. I understood "Deek" preferred to be race ready. Now his event was also the marathon, so maybe the aerobic/anaerobic balance is less of an issue. But it seems abandoning this Soviet periodization didn't hurt his career too much.

I think for the high school and university situation in the US, the racing intensity is such, that it's a good idea to take a longer "break" from racing, which lends itself to an easy period for developing easy mileage.

Also for young, undeveloped athletes, it is important to build up this aerobic foundation until you reach maturity. The question is what happens after you've reached the top? (OK maybe the first question is how long does it take to reach the top, if at all?) On the one side, Lydiard says that this high volume, marathon conditioning phase continues to produce benefits for life. But I want to bring in something you said about Soviet training: 3 times is optimal development; 2 times is development; and 1 time is maintenance. No one speaks of abandoning any aspect of training (or discarding the least important part to save time). Antonio, and Renato, are saying that once you've built this aerobic house, at a certain point it makes sense to start adding your furniture, rather than building more floors. It's not a question of abandoning "aerobic training". It's a question of reducing the volume, so that you transition from "development" to "maintenance". You don't want to lose what you've developed. At that point, it makes more sense to invest in a higher volume of intensity (while lowering your overall mileage), as only this will push your body further, providing a training stimulus.

So this makes me think, in the early years, something like Lydiard to build mileage, and aerobic foundation is ideal. Doesn't have to be Lydiard, but could be Hadd Phase 1, Daniels, Summer of Malmo, maybe even Summer of Antonio. But after a few years (5 years? 8 years?), when your performance starts to plateau to stagnate, maybe it's time to look for something else that will take you to the next level. One could argue, why not build up your aerobic house in a modern way from the beginning. I don't mind either, except that I know when I competed in high school, it was necessary to have "relaxed" goals in winter and summer, mainly for mental recovery. I was always glad the season was finished.

What do I mean by "connected"? This was my way of using one word, rather than having to say "general", "special", and "specific" all the time. I didn't want to repeat a lot of Canova's detailed posts, but in the past he has defined "specific" as 95%-105% of the speed of race pace. He also said less than 80% is outside of "general" interest. I don't have exact figures and ranges, but maybe something like 80%-90% is "general" and 90%-95% is "special". I'm not sure about paces above 105%, but maybe this is just called "speed". Renato also said in another thread, something like: in the old days we had 3 speeds: slow, medium, and fast. Now I don't know how many he has, but here is a list of some important pace ranges, from slower to faster: GENERAL RESISTANCE, AEROBIC RESISTANCE, AEROBIC POWER "1st LEVEL", AEROBIC POWER "2nd LEVEL", LACTIC ENDURANCE, LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE, LACTIC CAPACITY, and LACTIC POWER. (Note I didn't mention REGENERATION). Linking these paces to "specific", "special", or "general" depends on your event. For example, AEROBIC POWER "2nd LEVEL" would be "speed for Marathon and HM, specific for 10000m, special for 5000 and steeple, aerobic support for 1500 and 800m".

"Purdy" is something like the IAAF scoring tables, or Jack Daniels VDOT tables. It allows you to compare equivalent performances in different events. The point of my mathematical exercise was this: can 52-53 minutes for a 10 mile be considered fast? Is it a beneficial training? If you run 10,000m or the marathon, then maybe yes, but if you run 800m or 1500m, then maybe no. My point is this: if your training philosophy has a goal of developing a generic and absolute quality of endurance and stamina, then this kind of workout will be performed by all your athletes. But if you have a modern training philosophy that asks: if my race is finished in 2 minutes, is it really important to build my stamina out to hold a relatively slow pace for 52 minutes? The modern philosophy says that 80% of speed or less has no training benefit. Assuming that, this 52-53 minutes for a 10 miler will be beneficial for the high school athlete targeting a 1:57 800m, but not for an elite athlete (e.g. Peter Snell) targeting 1:45 800m. This 10 mile would have to be run at a current world record 44:00, just to promote this workout to "general" interest. And this 10 mile workout would likely be the fastest thing they do in the whole period, outside of fartlek or strides. This is why Antonio often challenges this generic idea of marathon training for the middle distance athlete (especially FT types).

What did I mean by "foundation"? -- actually that was a subtle suggestion for Wetcoast to clarify what he meant by Squires, Vigil, and Schumacher using Lydiard "as the foundation" of their training. If all of these guys started with "Lydiard", and added new ideas (just like Canova), then how could it be insulting to recognize that most every coach starts with something, then adds their own ideas.

One thing I'll mention is that I think the situation of the athlete is an important factor. When I read Lydiard's first book, these guys would train for cross-country, then road-racing, then track (I forget which order), according to the New Zealand calendar, as a club. I think a large emphasis was to train these runners to run many distances, on many surfaces and terrains, in different conditions. These guys were not only highly competitive, but they were well rounded runners at a variety of distances. I say this to contrast it with the "modern" emphasis on defining things according to race pace. The assumption here is you only have 1 race (or maybe 2). Today, athletes are specialists, allowing them to focus on one distance, sacrificing ability at other distances. I also mentioned the unique case of multi-event athletes like in the decathlon. Here it's hard for me to imagine how this kind of "modern" training methodology would approach such a variety of running and field events.

I hope I covered most of your top points -- I can't do the line by line editing response on your posts.

Antonio,

To help answer the question about Lydiard paces, his plans described things in term of fractional "efforts", not "paces". I always felt the problem wasn't the fraction, but how to measure effort. We can map 100% effort to races, but what does an "effort meter" look like, and what units is effort measured in? Tables were published in his first book, for many of the distances, so there's no need for all this uncertainty about paces.

But as you rightly said, the actual paces were not important (to Lydiard), as he was going for a certain effort that provided a certain feeling. The actual pace would vary depending on many independent variables.

Describing things by effort gives a kind of natural progression during the season, as the paces of the same workout get faster for the same effort naturally. This is a similar argument for HR based training.

It's subjective and messy. The vagueness gives you the flexibility to adjust to the correct pace for you, when it feels right. But the poor self-trained runner who doesn't know what "comfortably hard" means, is at a large risk of getting it wrong without more strict guidance.

Yo that Cerutty dude was smart but hey I watched a rabbit and it stretched first when it came right out of the hole, then took off. He said it backwards to make people think see, stretching is good.

Is Latslaw Tabori still running? He is coaching now? All those intervals burn you out. Jackie Hansen has the WR? No I didn't know that. Hey I'm done talking to you wise axe.

Yeah Snell was good but he got too big for his britchas.

I only coach coaches now, and I have coached all the best runners in the world since 1955 and before I was born. Because I coach all the coaches see, or else they read something that I wrote. We are going to beat all your axes!

Hey you want to learn more then come to one of my seminars and get all my books! You have to run 100 miles a week. Coe is a frigging liar! There is only one way to train and it's my way.

best post for a while

That dude Cerutty was so smart, he might even have tricked you into thinking about it.

Those interval coaches - they rush so much they burn em all out, even the ones with the pre-developed conditioning, just takes a little longer.

And i got too big for my britches as well, but i went back to my coach. He always saw a bigger picture than me. Its probably an early 20s thing.

And geez, so Lydiard pointed some things out, and maybe he spread the idea of foundation more than anyone else. Thanks Arthur for that and other tasty tidbits but my primary influence remains the Soviets.

And there is only one way to train, if you look deep enough. Lydiard points it out. Cerutty points it out. The Soviets point it out. We just have to look and we can see.

hey rekmany of the points and questions you re-raise here i did say something about in that long post. It might be worth reading some time when you aren't rushed and have to skim through it.

For me it is a little different than you explain. An athlete who is trying to be a professional needs to pay for everything, yes. Preferably he can also use his career to set his life up for the future. I just question the best approach.

This way of thinking of 'rushing' may drag a few more dollars out of the first few years, but then the athlete loses competitive edge and cannot make any more money, or his income dwindles away to a much lower level. This happens because of an imblance between training and competing.

The other way of thinking is 'longevity'. So you plan for a long career and take the money that comes along the way, because it adds up over time and may even peak really high if the longer process works itself into a career peak.

Take the money out of the equation and every athlete would prefer a longer than shorter career. So it is an injustice when a greedy coach rushes an athletes training process to make short term goals when the long term goals do not even exist. There is no thought of enabling the athlete to have a long career. This is my main issue with the whole thing. So when you say this:

I agree that the life focus may change once the Kenyan becomes a 'rich' person back at home. Would this happen in 3 years? It seems a pretty short amount of time to start saying no to this huge income stream that is coming in. However i am sure it is a factor and once the athlete starts finding it harder to achieve the same results as in the past, it comes into play in their thinking.

I just contend that the 'burnout' is the bigger factor out of the two you present, for the reasons i've mentioned. This isn't something new to me. Not something i've just been considering since Lydiard came into my research. This is something i've been aware of since my early 20s. My coach points this factor out in other coaches. He points out the coaches which aren't doing this 'fast food' approach as well. Then you watch their respective athletes over a few years. One group changes a lot as athletes come and go and the other is far less changing in this aspect. One group has most athletes under the age of 23 and the other just as many over 23 as under. It's pretty clear from simple observation but i guess can only be made over time. An analysis of an coaches' athletes over time would probably yield interesting results.

There is also zero times per week i just didn't mention it. Zero applies to when you aren't interesting in maintaining something anymore. Everything drops to a period of zero at some stage in every cycle. There has to be an off period. Things cannot stay switched on permanently. The entire training cycle has an off period of a few weeks as the broadest example.

Ok so total abandonment is avoided, fair enough. This still doesn't solve the problem. Maintenance levels of once per week only last for a certain amount of time. This length is subjective but the length of development is a main factor. So the longer something has been developed the longer it can be maintained for.

So once a week eventually becomes not enough. That is where twice a week comes into play. To help extend the maintenance period. This is its main purpose. It isn't used for developing a main quality because three is obviously better at this, so in this way it is used as a maintenance helper instead. You can fluctuate between the two to keep your levels maintained. Eventually this isn't enough and more and more twice a week are needed to maintain. By this stage you are well past the point of needing to go back through a period of optimal development again. But still people ignore this and keep on with the maintaining idea. Except now they are doing a mix of once per week, twice per week and even three times per week all just in the attempt to maintain. This becomes very difficult and interferes with the main focus of training at the time.

I just think as a race we are weak aerobically. So initially a re-balancing has to occur. But this aerobic rebalancing isn't a short term fix, but as time goes on the imbalance becoming more and more balanced, so less and less time needs to be devoted to it. But because it is such a huge problem, this rebalancing is many years in the making and extends further than the duration of an athletes career.

If 52 mins for this 10 mile course is at the upper extent of your effort levels then its going to develop you. Is this particular development related to the 800m is another question. Science is proposing a new way of looking at this all right now. So old explanations are apparently misleading. Will this change training methodology? Probably in at least some cases. Will it change the results of the past? Of course not. So still we have examples of Snell and Elliot confusing our minds. How did they do those times "without any competition" and "50 years ago". You put Snell and Elliot into 2012 OG in the 800m and 1500m respectively and we have to query whether they will be beaten or not? Keeping in mind adjusting their performances due to training and competing on todays surfaces and competiting against todays performance levels and not pre-1950 levels.

The insults against Lydiard go far beyond just this and i feel that is the cause of the reactions. I mean AC clearly defamated Lydiard a number of times on this page alone. In this particular case it is insulting the very thing they are using as a base for their own system, saying it is worthless is saying their opinions is worthless.

Did i not explain it sufficiently in my long post? I can provide more examples if you would like. Or maybe address a part of it that didn't make sense.

These are good questions to finish with. How do we design experiments to satisfy the scientist in us. This analysis of an coaches athletes list would be revealing i'm sure for your second point.[quote]

The vagueness, mots of the times gives you wrong pace, because the feeling isn´t a por way to determine the pace. imagine that you try 10 miles aerobic, but not as so slow as that (like Lydiard right ?). What you feel (lydiard feeling) the at a certain mean pace it´s not the same at 3 miles done, 6 miles done, 8miles done. Result: positive split. You feel different at the same pace because tiredness does accumulate as long as you delay and sustain you effort at the same pace. Consequently one of the two options, or after some miles you easy/slow down the pace to feel the same that you felt after the early miles, or your pace estimate during that run you feel that the pace goes faster or sustained when in reality you easy down the pace eventually. It´s very common be betrayed by the pace feeling. Every kind of pace control, even those that are rudimentary and not rich estimate like Jack Daniels - J.D. pace is too fast estimate, too hard - is better than pace feeling. One of the best pace estimate for aerobic runs is HR and the objective one , i mean objective for aerobic paces.

In my opinion Lydiard aerobic pace by feeling is poor training estimate and isn´t efficient. Anyhow yiu are right and and if it´s by feeling n o one can say if it´s faster or slow, what pace it is, no one can estimate because it depends from runner to runner. Imagine that many Lydiard runner feeling requires kind of LSD pace relate to their individual talent. Because it´s by feeling no one can say that Lydiard runners don´t do LSD pace. Imagine that some others Lydiard runners they feel comfort with hard runs faster than their best aerobic pace, faster than "steady-state". So, what´s Lydiard aerobic pace after all. No one can say, it´s totally individual, no one can debate i it´s faster or slower or similar than Antonio pace, or faster or slower than the famous italian coach. I´m right, Lydiard training is undefined in most of the variables, and for this same reason it´s poor training.