Wet HRE wrote:
Oh no it's Skuj yet again!
Mr. Wet HER,
There are others who think of me as Skujee. Some say no. I am from Italy. Skujee is from Canada. Too bad. But it's not your fault that some say it is true. I think you are part of the cult of Lydiard and cannot use your own mind. Too bad again. I will continue to write my thoughts here even though you don't know who I am really.
The Light wrote:
I have to side with Tinman on all counts.
First, "wellnow" has a tendency to come up with black-and-white statements that something is true or something else is now known to be and widely considered false. The older I get, the more I find out that life is not so black and white -- and particularly so in human physiology. I find these statements should only serve to introduce the colored statements which should follow. Standing alone, black-and-white statements have little weight. In mathematics, a single point has no thickness.
As an example, "wellnow" tells is quite pointedly that the idea of "oxygen debt" has been disproven. This could be in interesting point to follow up on, but what can I read to see what's behind that statement? Previously he did reference an older posting which he said explained the idea better (coincidentally by "Tinman"), but the best support I could find there was that the oxygen debt "model" was wrong -- that it over-estimates the magnituded of oxygen-debt. This doesn't disprove the idea, but just calls for a need to update the model. Can we just update the model, or is there another compelling reason to discard it as disproven? I don't know because the point hasn't been made yet. Life is in color, and discussions in a discussion forum should be too.
And finally, it is not insulting to say that bad English makes it hard to be understood. For native English speakers, it is just a statement of fact that should be possible to make without insult. In face-to-face conversations, you can add non-verbal cues, but in a written forum, all you have are the words. It is no more insulting to say you can't understand someone over the phone because of a noisy phone line. And since when did writing a treatise in Portuguese (is Antonio Cabral Portugese or Spanish?) on lactate buffering become a prerequisite for recognizing when someone has great ideas, but they aren't being communicated fully because of noise in the medium?
If you take away posts written in self-defense, I have only seen Tinman come up with interesting discussions, and helpful formulas to help zero in on the paces or efforts he's talking about, only to be bashed by others, not because of his words, but because he hasn't posted his credentials, or coached elite athletes, and uses a pseudonym. In an anonymous public forum, posts should be judged by their content, not by unauthenticable credentials. No amount of muckraking old posts out of context can change that.
I accept that there is probably a small oxygen debt, but the old oxygen debt hypothesis is yet another of A.V. Hill's ideas from the early 1920's and his explanation has been proven to be false.
So has his concept of lactic acidosis and his concept of going from totally aerobically derived energy to totally anaerobically derived energy.
I am reporting the work of great physiologists, click on the links I have posted, and read about them, and then maybe you will understand that I am NOT talking black and white here. I am disapointed that you would say that about me, check my sources, you will see I have done my research.
wellnow wrote:
IQ100, why are you misquoting me and then agreeing with what I have already written, but saying that you really disagree etc etc blah blah blah?
wellnow
In my last post i try to use kind of irony. But my taget is to say that your comment that we may do interval/repetition workouts during the introductory block this ma be correct training based in the fact that 3k to 10k workouts aren´t anaerobic.
This you idea that´s a heresy and intredit for the Lydiard followers of that cult.
Every good book about running methodology and running physilogy says that a race of 3k to 10K pace that is aerobic mostly.
From that knowledge of the modern physiology the use of repetitons or interval workouts that´s good method to increase the aerobic capacity on every block of training. That workouts can´t damage your aerobic condition if doe with parcimony. Otherwise that workouts can be effective in improve your aerobic condition if combined with daily aerobic runs and mileage.
Lydiardism based in Lydiard method they still insist that repetitions at 3k to 10k pace with enough recover that´s anaerobic and not save to do that during the marathon/aerobic block.
IQ100 wrote:
IQ100, why are you misquoting me and then agreeing with what I have already written, but saying that you really disagree etc etc blah blah blah?
wellnow
In my last post i try to use kind of irony. But my target is to say that your comment that we may do interval/repetition workouts during the intro block this is correct training based in the fact that 3k to 10k workouts aren´t anaerobic as you try to prove.
This your idea that´s an heresy and interdit for the Lydiard followers of that cult.
Every good book about running methodology and running physiology says that a run of 3k to 10K pace that is aerobic mostly. the more repetitons a 3k-10k pace.
From that knowledge of the modern physiology the use of repetitions or interval workouts that´s good method to prmote the increase of the aerobic capacity on every block of training. That workouts can´t damage your aerobic condition if done with parcimony. Otherwise that workouts can be very effective in the improve of your aerobic condition if you combine it with daily aerobic runs and mileage.
Lydiardism based in Lydiard method they still insist that repetitions at 3k to 10k pace with enough recover that´s anaerobic and not save to do that during the marathon/aerobic block.[/quote]
lydiard or daniels? that like asking me to choose between my two children....
I'll fully admit that I have been defensive in the past on letsrun. I definitely appologize for that. In some cases it was provoked (by attack), but in other cases I was up late and should not have been debating with others who werre being aggressive in their assertions. I have, at times, mistook heated debated for personal attack, and I was wrong in those cases. Again, I am sorry for that.
Let's move forward and work on the merits of our discussion, if you don't mind.
An aside:
Now, about lactic acid:
If one is inexperienced or unaware of the many sources of information available it would be easy to draw (erroneous) conclusions about lactic acid. A flaw in debate would be to focus on just one authors point of view and think is is the only truth. Dr. Robergs is a brilliant man, no doubt, but reading just his articles on lactic acid / lactate and looking no further would cause one to miss some valuable counter-points.
From me:
Lactic acid may not exist for lengthy time frames in working muscle, experts now agree to an extent. It still doesn't mean that lactate - which exists when pyruvate is not assimilated into the mitochondria for aerobic glycolysis(oxidative pholphorylation)- isn't "free" of causation. And, even if it lactate wasn't a causation factor of fatigue, it is still highly associated with local muscle fatigue.
In ISOLATION one may erroneous conclude that lactate accumulation is not a harm at all, but that may be wrong; according some very bright scientists. Read the quotes below!
From Dr. Graham D. Lamb and Dr George Stephenson of the Lo Trobe University of Victoria, Australia. They cite many reserach articles to support their point.
"In humans, the negative consequence of lactic acid accumulation far exceed any postive effects."
"It has been observed that the lactate ion per se reduces muscle force independent of any PH changes."
"It has been reported that lactate and H+ induce an impairment of sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ release channels (Ma j, et al, 1988), depresses Ca2+ activation of thin filaments (Metzger JM and Fitts RH, 1987), and H+ induces a reduction of the Ca2+ reloading into sarcopasmic reticulum (Fabiato And Fabiato F, 1978)."
"There is merit in providing a useful summary of the underlying biochemical reactions involved in energy production within muscle and in identifying the correct species of metabolic substrates and products.
Note this next part!
However, failure to apply the entirety of physicochemical principles leads to the incorrect and misleading conclusion that lactate– is unrelated to the metabolic acidosis of exercise. We do contend, therefore, that the accumulation of lactate–within skeletal muscle directly contributes to intracellular acidosis, by virtue of the fact that it is a strong acid anion that fundamentally alters the behavior of water. With respect to acid-base balance, it is inappropriate to consider each biochemical reaction independently, and it is similarly inappropriate to try to link them temporally or in biochemical sequence. Acid-base balance changes instantaneously; therefore, a more complete understanding of the acidosis of exercise considers the simultaneous biochemical, transport, and proton buffering reactions, as well as their instantaneous and simultaneous physicochemical interactions with water, at any point in time. As stated by Norman Jones in 1980 (16): "The simple biochemical relationships above yield only a shortsighted view of proton release because the ionic state of the reactants is ignored. As they may exist in either acidic or basic forms, the net charges need to be taken into account. Reference to a biochemistry text (20) will show that the equations may be written more accurately and the source of protons is not what it seemed at first."
The whole article:
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 289: R891-R894, 2005; doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00225.2005
0363-6119/05 $8.00
Wellnow,
I'm no scientist, but my understanding of the way the body's energy model works runs thus:
When the body's demand for energy first begins, aerobic respiration (through oxidation of ATP via the Krebs cycle) doesn't occur fast enough to meet the initial spike in fuel demand. I liken aerobic respiration through substrate-level phosphorlyation to an engine that is powerful and efficient, yet slow to start- aerobic respiration, in keeping with my metaphor, takes a long time to go from "0 to 60" (reach full production capacity.
So, because the initial demand for energy cannot be met by the efficient, powerful aerobic respiration, the body has two other primary methods of getting energy to the cells.
The first uses creatine phosphate as a fuel, and while the breakdown of creatine for energy results in no waste products, the body also uses its supply fairly quickly, and so after 10-15 seconds or so, the readily-usable supply is gone.
The second, which "kicks in" after the creatine is exhausted but before the body can primarily utilize aerobic respiration; anaerobic glycosis. Utilizing an electron transport chain, pyruvate is producted. Pryruvate is then converted (by another anerobic process) to lactate, which in turn is used by the body as fuel.
I was under the impression the pH levels of the body lowered as a result of acidosis caused not by lactate but by the increased hydrolysis of ATP molecules, which occurs after lactate is used as fuel.
So, if you looked at the percentage of energy contributions of the body's different systems during exercise, you'd see that the LONGER the duration, the MORE aerobic something was.
something like (I'm making the exact numbers up)
100 meters- 99% anaerobic energy, 1% aerobic
400 meters- 70% anaerobic, 30% aerobic
mile- 50% anaerobic, 50% aerobic
marathon: 1% anaerobic, 99% aerobic
So if you looked at the contributions of each kind on a graph, you'd see anaerobic contributions falling off as the duration of exercise increased and the aerobic contributions increase as the duration increases.
There is no lactic acid in the human body, only lactate, which is, as you pointed out, a vital and reusable (to a point) fuel. However, the more lactate in the tissues, the more hydrolysis of ATP occurs, and as a result of that hydrolysis, more lowering of the body's pH level.
So, technically, as I understood cellular respiration, no, lactate itself does not cause acidosis. However, the process by which lactate is utilized by the body as fuel does indirectly lead to the lowering of the body's pH level.
Looking at it that way, its pretty obvious why many pioneering exercise physiologists drew the conclusion that "as lactate levels become very high, a lowering of the body's pH occurs and ability to perform decline sharply, at least until lactate levels in the tissues go back down again."
Was this decline in performance correctly associated with the presence of increased amounts of lactate in the tissues? No, but it wasn't totally incorrect either.
So while a slight change in terminology should be advocated (saying lactate instead of lactic acid, no more referring to "oxygen debt" etc, etc) it's not like the whole model needs to be thrown out as useless. More importantly, it doesn't change how to go about training, just how to correctly describe what you're doing.
I got your backs, Lydiardite cultists. :)
Correction:
The quoted information in the previous post was from Dr. Jens Bangsbo and Carsten Jeul of the Institute of Exercise and Sports Sciences at the Cpenhage Muscle Research Centre (Institute of Molecular Biology and Physiology), University of Copenhagen, Denmark who were proving counter-point information to Drs.Lamb and Stephenson.
I will say that after reading their arguments, Dr. Lamb and Stephenson seem to be making assumptions based on isolation methods that are not uniform with real intra-cellular activities. Note I am not a biochemist and this is my face-value observation.
One interesting point that Drs Bangbo and Juel make refutes the idea, at the least indirectly, that lactate is the "savior" that reduces fatigue:
"...a number of studies have shown that lowered pH leads to greater potassium release and potassium accumulatin in the muscle interstitium..."
My analysis:
The above statment leads to the fairly obvious conclusion that electrolyte imbalance occurs as lactate rises and, thus, a reduction of muscle contractile force and velocity of contraction. When potassium is released in excess and accumulatess in the muscle interstitium, the sodium-potassium pumps will be directly influenced - inhibited to work well. That simple means contraction is limited, reduced, or concluded when lactate rises to high.
So,if you are a runner and you run reps fast and in high volume with insufficient recovery you'll get to a point where simply can't keep the speed going. That's obvious enough to any runner who has done fast rep workouts, but to the pseudo-scientists who insist that lactate is a "friend" is in denial of the reality. A coach like Lydiard, trained by the German scientists who were doing the lactate testing, knew that a accumulating a high level of lactate was reducing capacity to run fast and that training to elevate the cruising speed where running doesn't accumulate lacate is vital to succes. And, once cruising speed is raised, doing a high volume of high-speed repetition trainng provides increased capacity to deal with lactate accumulation ONCE it occurs.
From Bangsbo and Jeul as they argue against making conclusions, as many have, that are based on unrealistic situations:
"The argument for a positive role of lactic acid are based on studies of isolated and noncontracting muscle and skinned muscle fibers. In our review we argued that thes results represented ARTIFICIAL nonexercise-related conditions and it is NOT possible to extrapolate to the in vivo condition (reality).
Further, they conclude:
"The capacit for lactate/H+ transport in human muscle is incrased by training and there is a positive correlation between transport capacity (i.e. efflux) and performance (Piligaard H, 1994); these findings further suggest that lactic acid accumulatin is a DISADVANTAGE."
Yeah, I know you may have a continued problem with the word lactic acid, but when you look at the physicochemical argument you realized that it is indeed present but does change very rapidly in the water milieu of the cells being identified. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen though. And, no matter how you slice it, lactate accumulation is not disinvolved with fatigue!
Tinman
Correction:
The quoted information in the previous post was from Dr. Jens Bangsbo and Carsten Juel of the Institute of Exercise and Sports Sciences at the Cpenhage Muscle Research Centre (Institute of Molecular Biology and Physiology), University of Copenhagen, Denmark who were proving counter-point information to Drs.Lamb and Stephenson.
I will say that after reading their arguments, Dr. Lamb and Stephenson (their foe) seem to be making assumptions based on isolation-methods that are not uniform with real intra-cellular circumstances in working muscle.(Note I am not a biochemist and this is my layman's interpretation.)
One interesting point that Drs Bangbo and Juel make refutes the idea that lactate is a "savior" that reduces fatigue:
"...a number of studies have shown that lowered pH leads to greater potassium release and potassium accumulatin in the muscle interstitium..."
My analysis: The above statment leads to the obvious conclusion that electrolyte imbalance occurs as lactate rises; thus, a reduction of muscle contractile force and velocity of contraction occurs. When potassium is released in excess and accumulatess in the muscle interstitium, the sodium-potassium pumps will be directly influenced: contraction is limited, reduced, or concluded when lactate rises too high.
Pragmatics: If an athlete runs reps fast and in high volume with insufficient recovery a point is reached where it is impossible to keep the speed going.
That's obvious enough to any runner who has done fast rep workouts, but to the pseudo-scientists who insists that lactate is a "friend" is in denial of the reality. A coach like Lydiard, trained by the German scientists, who were doing the original lactate testing, knew that accumulating high lactate levels reduced capacity to run fast in sustained fashion, and training to elevate the "cruising speed" above which accumulating lacate occurs is a vital element of performacne succes. *And, once cruising speed is raised through voluminous distance running, it is possible to do large volumes of high-speed repetition training; hence providing increased capacity to deal with lactate accumulation and associated acidosis ONCE it occurs.
From Bangsbo and Juel, as they argue against making conclusions based on unrealistic situations:
"The argument for a positive role of lactic acid are based on studies of isolated and noncontracting muscle and skinned muscle fibers. In our review we argued that these results represented ARTIFICIAL nonexercise-related conditions and it is NOT possible to extrapolate to the in vivo condition (reality).
Further, they conclude:
"The capacity for lactate/H+ transport in human muscle is incrased by training and there is a positive correlation between transport capacity (i.e. efflux) and performance (Piligaard H, 1994); these findings further suggest that lactic acid accumulation is a DISADVANTAGE."
Yeah, I know you may have a continued problem with the word lactic acid, but the physicochemical argument defines the process as occuring (but rapid) - in the water milieu of the cells being identified. Just because it is instantaneous doesn't mean that it doesn't result nor does it take away the fact that acidosis occurs.
No matter how you slice it, lactate accumulation is NOT disinvolved with fatigue!
Tinman
Tinman wrote:
I'll fully admit that I have been defensive in the past on letsrun. I definitely appologize for that. In some cases it was provoked (by attack), but in other cases I was up late and should not have been debating with others who werre being aggressive in their assertions. I have, at times, mistook heated debated for personal attack, and I was wrong in those cases. Again, I am sorry for that.
As someone who had many debates and once or twice did not understand why you suddenly got pissed off at me, I am very greatful for this, and my perception of you has just gone up immeasureably. You are a good man, Tinman.
CraigMac4h wrote:
So, if you looked at the percentage of energy contributions of the body's different systems during exercise, you'd see that the LONGER the duration, the MORE aerobic something was.
something like (I'm making the exact numbers up)
100 meters- 99% anaerobic energy, 1% aerobic
400 meters- 70% anaerobic, 30% aerobic
mile- 50% anaerobic, 50% aerobic
marathon: 1% anaerobic, 99% aerobic
That´s true for a run. A run in done in continuum and you do your best pace for the total distance. A race that´s 100% your effort capacity. Therefore the longer the distance/duration YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THE PACE SPEED. That´s the main reason why the longer the duration the more aerobic.
But if get back to the original question of the Lydiard anaerobic block and you run repetitions IN the same main pace WHEN YOU LONGER THE DURATION/distance - that´s to say you do more repetitions at your best pace - THE MORE ANAEROBIC that workout IS.
Example: you run 10K and your lactate is 13.5 at the end. But if you run 10X1000m with interval recover at that that 10K pace run your lactate is less than 13.5. So the workout is less anaerobic than the continuous run.
Waht that means ? If you use repetitions with workouts that use permits to train more volume without being anaerobic. This is what Lidiardism want to ignore and make us ignorants.
I didn't ever hear about muscle viscosity before, but I liked how it sounded -- thanks for the clarification.I'm not against avoiding recent research. I just wonder if we should attempt to couple it to the Lydiard system. Is science a necessary part of Lydiardism, or is it superfluous? After all, Lydiard developed his system with only the science knowledge available in the 1950's, using the age old scientific method of trial and error, ignorant of some modern terms like aerobic and anaerobic. In the last 50 years, science has changed, but the Lydiard system has not. Science might help some understand why it works, for those who need to know, but when the science evolves, independently of the system, then some people start getting confused. New science is not contradicting the Lydiard system, but rather the old science.Maybe we have another problem with terminology, but I don't think Aerobic Capacity and Aerobic Development are interchangeable terms. I would interchange Aerobic Development with Aerobic Conditioning, base-building, or building your foundation, but not Aerobic Capacity. For example, if I look at the chart here: http://www.endurancefactor.com/Articles/Lacatethreshold.htm , I think that Aerobic development is happening in Zones 1 (Recovery) and 2 (Endurance) at paces slower than Tempo, while Aerobic Capacity is Zone 5, above Lactate Threshold. Put another way, I understand VO2max intervals to develop Aerobic Capacity, while long steady runs are for your Aerobic Development.
wellnow wrote:
Muscle viscosity was another idea attributable to A.V. Hill, which adds more fuel to my debate that Lydiard based his scientific ideas on Hill's ideas. People jump on this as Lydiard spouting bad science without knowing the facts.
However, in The Light of recent advancements in physiology, the last 30 years or so, I think avoiding recent research is bad science, something which is not in my mind, the true spirit of "Lydiardism."
I am against the idea that "Lydiardism" should be set in stone. We should endeavour to test Arthur's training concepts and show them in relation to what was known and what is now known.
Aerobic Capacity and Aerobic development are terms that are used interchangeably, they essentially mean the same thing in most discussions.
You can do any type of training at any time, and gain a long term benefit if you do it progressively. It is the balance that is crucial to development, but Lydiard wanted his runners to concentrate and focus on building fitness gradually to avoid peaking too soon. I think that was why he was so adamant about adding speed endurance and speed gradually.
"wellnow",
It's not my purpose to disappoint you, so let me try to rephrase it. I see you are highly motivated to do this research, and you are doing your homework. When you provide insight, explanations, and supporting links, even just a short couple of lines, this is exactly the color I seek. Maybe I'm not normal, but I guess the idea of a discussion forum is to discuss, and not dictate truths or falsehoods. Sometimes, you give conclusions, like "that idea has been disproven and is widely now known to be false in the scientific community", that pique my interest, and leave me wanting. This is what I mean by black and white. Occasionally, we see science go back and forth, so what is false today, may turn out to be a little bit true tomorrow.
My purpose in defending Tinman, is I have seen a history of others (not you) bashing him, for reasons I didn't understand, when he gives valuable information and discussion. In this specific case, Tinman asked you what you thought was contradictory, which I thought was fair, and some Tinman-basher still holding a grudge jumped out of the shadows to point out a catalog of some alleged historical hypocrisies, which may (or may not) have been justified then, in that historical context, but is completely irrelevant now.
Please continue your research, and when you are ready to formulate your laymen's terms, I will be here to read it. In the meantime, I will avoid misusing lactic acid, and anaerobic.
Are you the grandfather of jogging?
til the wheels fall off wrote:
lydiard or daniels? that like asking me to choose between my two children....
The Light wrote:
I'm not against avoiding recent research. I just wonder if we should attempt to couple it to the Lydiard system. Is science a necessary part of Lydiardism, or is it superfluous? After all, Lydiard developed his system with only the science knowledge available in the 1950's, using the age old scientific method of trial and error, ignorant of some modern terms like aerobic and anaerobic. In the last 50 years, science has changed, but the Lydiard system has not. Science might help some understand why it works, for those who need to know, but when the science evolves, independently of the system, then some people start getting confused. New science is not contradicting the Lydiard system, but rather the old science.
That´s not just the modern science knowledge that contradicts SOME aspects of the Lydiard system. That is the modern trial and error done for the last 3 1/2 decades. To be a long period of months with aerobic runs and without intervals, to train the anaerobic for some 6 weeks that´s all outdate.
When do you realise that Lydiard is outdate and is innadequate in many aspects ?
The Lydiard system is not outdated or inadequate.
However, the scientific terms used to describe the reasons behind the way Lydiard structured his training could be outdated.
What's outdated about Lydiard's actual training? Do athletes not need a finely tuned aerobic system? Do they not need to improve their capacity for performing at race pace? Do they no longer benefit from hills?
You could argue that the structure of Lydiard's program is no longer ideal for athletes, because the racing season is longer than 3 months now, and that the modern distance athlete has many commitments- World Cross, Olympics, National Championships, World Indoors, etc, etc.
I would even agree with you that the racing for only a few weeks of the year is outdated- but that doesn't invalidate an entire philosophy of training.
Craig Mottram is a great example of an athlete whose coach has successfully adapted Lydiard principles to the modern demands and needs of his athlete.
Face it, IQ100- you're wrong. The Lydiard Cult doesn't exist, Lydiard was a training revolutionary, and his methods are still relevant and viable today.
As part of the cult, I would also like to add that human physiology has not changed in thousands of years.
Lydiard did not invent human physiology, he discovered what works and doesn't work in human physiology when it comes to endurance sports, specifically running. However endurance in human physiology transends the specific sport, so is applied in rowing, swimming, cycling, walking, running, nordic skiing and many other sports and even dance and figure skating where the performance is of any length at all.
It's human physiology.
IQ100 is like a pop star fan, wants his hits of today, with short little rythms with 1/4 notes and instant catchy phrases.
Lydiard is like Miles Davis, an innovator, an act of his own and his music never gets old.
Or in the great white north up here, Oscar Peterson (RIP).
IQ100, you may also suffer form a visual malady, clearly you meant to type, IQ010 but screwed that up too.
CraigMac4h wrote:
The Lydiard system is not outdated or inadequate.
What's outdated about Lydiard's actual training?
About the aerobic need as build-up this is common sense training, nothing revolutionary or new either. 100miles is outdate. Every top class runner do 100miles if not more but this wasn’t by the use of Lydiard method but common sense physiology. The Lydiard training blocks that’s outdate. Most recent methods have best season periodisation than what Lydiard used. Most methods did a huge success while use intervals during the aerobic/build up phase. That’s a evidence that intervals with parsimony frequency and progressively, adjust to the runner needs and not done all out flat, because all flat out would too much anaerobic, that helps the runner to improve his aerobic condition. Therefore as the Lydiard method it interdicts repetitions and intervals during the build-up phase is outdate. Also the fact that the racing season have different needs the training structure that doesn’t continued with the aerobic condition during the later period before the peak that’s outdate. Weekly long runs for short-middle distance runners as 800m-1500m/mile that are overrated and outdate.
Lydiard that’s as perfect as other method. That’s no logic or rational evidence that Lydiard is the perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic training.
CraigMac4h wrote:
Do athletes not need a finely tuned aerobic system? Do they not need to improve their capacity for performing at race pace? Do they no longer benefit from hills?
The need of a finely tuned aerobic system that is common sense. Every good method says so. So this is nothing new really. The fact is that each different method try to improve the aerobic condition by different training schedules. In that aspect Lydiard is similar to all the rest.
The aerobic condition is very important. That’s first step to improve. Simply Lydiard he was wrong because the runner improve by the aerobic condition is as limited as the anaerobic improve. I can prove it.
Hills in the Lydiard style that is Lydiard genuine training really like the Lydiard way to lace the shoes..
CraigMac4h wrote:
Craig Mottram is a great example of an athlete whose coach has successfully adapted Lydiard principles to the modern demands and needs of his athlete.
By the way Craig is a runner that does what I said. He does repetitions/intervals during the build-up phase which isn’t Lydiard at all.
CraigMac4h wrote:
Face it, IQ100- you're wrong. The Lydiard Cult doesn't exist, Lydiard was a training revolutionary, and his methods are still relevant and viable today.
Yes. Lydiard was a coach revolutionary in the 60s. But it was some 30 years ago.
All revolutionaries have their followers that they build up the man and the man’s idea into a cult.
It's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight "oh, a big aerobic base is common sense."
Well you know what? Before Lydiard, it WASN'T common sense. Especially for mid-distance runners.
Sure, you had Ernst Van Aaken, but his ideas were largely ignored in favor of his contemporary, Gerschler.
It's easy to look back and go "oh, Lydiard figured out that even mid-distance guys needed a big base- that's just common sense."
It's also easy to look back on almost any great advancement say "oh, common sense." Using the power of steam to run turbines to generate power to allow for electrically powered devices that make our lives easier is common sense too- but we don't say that the guy who invented the turbine or discovered steam power isn't anyone special, do we?
NOW it's common sense that a runner needs a big base. Because LYDIARD made base building a huge priority.
If weekly long runs were oudated, then why were Lydiard's runners so successful? Mid-distance runners need a weekly long run during conditioning/preparation periods. Steve Ovett ran long once a week, Coe commonly ran 12-14 miles, El Guerrouj did long runs. Long runs are ESSENTIAL for mid-distance runners.
Oh, and about Mottram:
"I've also read Lydiard, which is still the base of all the best distance training programs going around today."
-Nic Bideau, Mottram's coach, in an interview.
Source:
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/competitiveedge/interviews/NicBideau.pdf
Also, Nic said: “Three books will tell you how to do the training. It’s not like it is incredibly complex. Lydiard was talking about it in the 60s.
“You can look at Lydiard or Harry Wilson. I didn’t invent the stuff that I tell Mottram to do that helps him run well, or Benita Johnson or Sonia. Alan Storey didn’t invent it. In the 1970s Brendan Foster was doing it. I was talking to Dick Quax earlier this year and showed him what Mottram did that week and he said, ‘That’s the same sort of stuff as we did!’”
Source:
http://www.sports-fitness.com/article/sf/uk/read/108/4
Oh, I guess Bideau is a crazy Lydiard cultist too. Lydiard is soooo out of date- Mottram only ran 3:48 mile, 8:03 two mile, and 12:55 5000. What a stupid, pointless, ancient training regimen.
If you didn't know, IQ100, Ovett's coach was Harry Wilson, who had Ovett doing well over 100 a week, a weekly long run, Lydiard-type hill circuits.
When will you stop ignoring the facts? There is no Lydiard Cult, only people who recognize how significant Lydiard's contributions to distance running training were.
CraigMac,
Do you know to what 3 books Nic Bideau refers to as essentials for training?
Obviously he mentions both Lydiard and Harry Wilson several times, but I was just wondering which 3 books he means specifically.