LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Other Running Related Topic

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 118 of 132

1 117 118 119 132

17 years ago 01/17/2008 9:51am EST

re: IQ100

I didn't say, nor would I, that science contradicts the Lydiard system. Such a statement doesn't make any sense to me. I think science helps us understand why a system works (or doesn't), but I consider it completely outside the system. So modern science only contradicts old science, but for me, both are decoupled from the Lydiard system.I don't know what you want to say by "outdated". Sure the system was developed sometime ago, before I was born, but these things don't have expiration dates, do they? It's not like milk. My PC is outdated, but still does everything I want, as long as I don't have to upgrade anything.And the success of other systems don't necessarily show a failure of the Lydiard system. Will following the Lydiard system fail to bring me to my full potential, or fail to bring me high peaks during important races? Will violating a Lydiard principal bring these things faster or higher?I would realize it was inadequate if someone could properly show it was inadequate. If it's really true, it shouldn't be that hard.Regards,

IQ100 wrote:
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 ?

17 years ago 01/17/2008 10:20am EST

re: 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.
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

Tinman, the last part that you quoted, I have alread posted here to show that Lindinger et al (it is their paper) agree with Robergs et al that LACTATE DOES NOT CAUSE ACIDOSIS.

Rather Lactate production has a buffering effect because it is a hydrogen ion acceptor. The acidity is caused by non-mitochondrial ATP turnover. Robergs shows that neither Lactic acid nor pyruvic acid is formed, since neither can act as acids, because they cannot release a proton into solution.

Thus, lactate serves to reduce the build up of hydrogen ions in the muscle cell.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 10:28am EST

re: Tinman

Tinman wrote:
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

I agree that lactate accumulatoion is assosiated with fatigue. But that does not mean that lactate causes fatigue. The association comes from the fact that the higher the excercise intensity, the more lactate you produce to help keep the pace going.

Lactate is an aerobic muscle fuel and an extremely efficient energy source, so how can it cause fatigue?

17 years ago 01/17/2008 10:37am EST

re: IQ100

IQ100 wrote:
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.

*******************************************************

Anonoio, CraigMac4h was mostly correct, except the percentages, the 100m is more aerobic than he says about 10% and the mile about 88% aerobic, and the Marathon about 96% aerobic 4% anerobic, these figures varying from runner to runner.

So you got your aerobic-anaerobic definiton wrong, Craig got it right.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 10:44am EST

re: The Light

The Light wrote:
"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.

Thanks I will try to explain things and present the research of the most brillian physiologists from the last 100 years, comparing old and new thoughts, research and conclusions.

The last 30 years is really important, because most of the ideas we read and hear come from A.V. Hill's 1923 bioenergitics model, including Lydiard's.

Lydiard was obviously hugely enthusiastic about explaining the science, so I want to continue his conceptual approach into the 21st Century.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 11:20am EST

re: CraigMac4h

You still insist in not read me and do different conclusions to what i post.

i said "Lydiard was a revolutionary training in the 60s. ACTUALLY is GOOD COMMON SENSE, I REPEAT "ACTUALLY".

About Lydiard being the first one to prescribe aerobic training this is a joke. Zatopec while training the famous twice a day that monster NON-STOP intervals like 20-30-40-50 some say 100X400m covering a total distance of 25 to 40kilos a day he did nothing but tons of aerobic training.

Simply he did that different than Lydiard. Or do you want to deny Zatopec sucess and many other success ?

When in 1964 Bob Schull did win the 5000m in Toquio Olympics over some Lydiard Kiwis he didn´t Lydiard method or do you think he did.

I see your point about Mottram, Coe, El Guerrouj or Shorter. They are all in the Lydiard method what else ?

17 years ago 01/17/2008 12:07pm EST

re: IQ100

Notes on the last few posts:

I have no idea what 3 books Bideau is specifically referring to, but

www.magstraining.tripod.com

has some really good information on Harry Wilson's training (look in the "learning from the past" section")

Wellnow,

I was recalling those figures from memory (or at least trying to). Your figures are definitely more accurate than my hasty recalling.

Lactate as an aerobic fuel: Yes, lactate is an aerobic, efficient fuel. However, the more lactate in the tissues, the more hydrolysis of ATP there is. The more hydrolysis of ATD, the more the body's pH level lowers. So, no, lactate doesn't cause acidosis directly. However, the amount of lactate concentration in the tissues is a viable way of measuring the degree to which the blood's pH has been lowered because even though lactate doesn't cause lowered pH, it is linked to it indirectly.

So while it is technically incorrect to say "lactate causes acidosis" it isn't incorrect to say "the amount of lacate concentration is a good indicator of the degree to which the body's pH has been lowered."

IQ100:

This is where you're putting words in my mouth. You're saying Lydiard is useless nowadays, that it was good in the 60s, but outdated and ancient now.

I'm not saying Lydiard is the only way. But it is still a GOOD way. Will it work for everyone? No. But will it work for a lot of people? Sure thing!

See, the way I see it, Lydiard was a revolutionary, and his methods are still viable and important and relevant today. Are there other coaches with valuable contributions? Of course. Lydiard is one of several incredibly ground-breaking coaches.

You say Lydiard is outdated, its a cult, it was ok in the 60s but useless now. I say he's still influential, still important, and still relevant.

Some athletes don't follow a Lydiard model at all. Bob Schul, Jim Grelle, and Jim Spivey come to mind. Schul was a gold medalist, Spivey was a 3:49 miler. Obviously, Lydiard isn't the only way to success. But it IS STILL A WAY. And it's STILL a GOOD way.

A lot of athletes are Lydiard influences- Shorter said (in his OWN WORDS) that he was a Lydiard guy. Bideau said the same about Mottram. So stop whining about me using examples of athletes to support my point. I'm not looking at a guy's training and saying "oh, thats Lydiard." I'm taking these athletes' OWN WORDS.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 12:12pm EST

re: CraigMac4h

CraigMac4h wrote:
Long runs are ESSENTIAL for mid-distance runners.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 12:26pm EST

re: NONONO

Yes.

Steve Scott did regular long runs. Morceli did weekly 75 minute runs at least.

Coe, the consummate low-mileage guy, did 12 milers regularly (long runs for a guy who wasn't doing much per week compared with some of the other guys).

El Guerrouj used to DROP 2:07 marathoners on his long runs (granted, for him a long run was a steady workout, whereas a marathoner would be doing his long runs relatively easy in the Moroccan training system).

I'd prefer to look at the training of some of history's best milers, instead of thinking "oh, well so-and-so, a guy in college I knew, was a 3:59 miler off 40 a week."

17 years ago 01/17/2008 12:46pm EST

re: CraigMac4h

CraigMac4h wrote:
I'd prefer to look at the training of some of history's best milers, instead of thinking "oh, well so-and-so, a guy in college I knew, was a 3:59 miler off 40 a week."

And now you wish to turn it into miles per week. That is not what I was talking about.

LONG RUNS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 12:57pm EST

re: NO

NO,

you are absolutley correct, long runs are not essential for middle distance. Unless you want to be successful at the highest levels. Look at how well the US has done over the last 8 to 10 years with that attitude. The dearth of medals or even finalists at Worlds and the Olympics is unbelievable.

Glenn

17 years ago 01/17/2008 1:06pm EST

re: Glenn McCarthy

Glenn McCarthy wrote:
NO,
you are absolutley correct, long runs are not essential for middle distance. Unless you want to be successful at the highest levels.
Glenn

NO. I will keep saying it until someone who isn't using tunnel vision picks up the discussion and sees the statement for what it is. Craig posted something as an absolute. He and you are wrong.

LONG RUNS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE SUCCESS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 1:09pm EST

re: Glenn McCarthy

Glenn McCarthy wrote:
NO,
you are absolutley correct, long runs are not essential for middle distance. Unless you want to be successful at the highest levels. Look at how well the US has done over the last 8 to 10 years with that attitude. The dearth of medals or even finalists at Worlds and the Olympics is unbelievable.
Glenn

I will even go as far as saying that one small contributer to this failure is the BELIEF in what Craig (and you) say is essential.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 3:33pm EST

re: NO

NO,

you can stack the deck chairs on the Titanic with the rest of our American Middle distance coaches and forgo the distance work that can (notice I say can, no absolute) contribute to making runners with a decent amount of talent contenders at the top most levels in middle distance events. I have no need to convince you that your approach is not correct. Just letting the results speak for themselves is enough.

In a country that dominates the 400 meter (both flat and hurdle) why is it that we cannot put 2 runners in the next longer event top 20 year after year? Perhaps is has to do with what can be accomplished with natural talent and speed work versus what calls for aerobic development to support the longer event? Or maybe not. I know what I believe. I think it is well grounded in results.

Glenn

17 years ago 01/17/2008 3:42pm EST

re: Glenn McCarthy

Glenn McCarthy wrote:
NO,
you are absolutley correct, long runs are not essential for middle distance. Unless you want to be successful at the highest levels. Look at how well the US has done over the last 8 to 10 years with that attitude. The dearth of medals or even finalists at Worlds and the Olympics is unbelievable.
Glenn

But how many medals or olympic finalists we had in the last 8 to 10 years that train by the Lydiard method ?

About the long run need. Most of the olympics and world finalists they go the the vestiaries and take shower. But that´s not the reason they are olympics. How many do take sower everyday but aren´t olympics or world finalists ?How many runners al over the world do the long run aren´t qualified for the olympics or world champs ? Certain much more than those who are olympics and don´t do long runs.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 3:42pm EST

re: NO

Actually, training isn't essential either. Things just go better if you do some. same with long runs.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 3:53pm EST

re: HRE

HRE wrote:
Actually, training isn't essential either. Things just go better if you do some. same with long runs.

Not a clever conclusion. How many runners do the olympics or eveyother top class without training regularly. NO ONE. But without the long run many.

Besides for let´s say 1:41 to 4 minutes runs - 800m to 1500m ther´s no consistent physiology or methodology argument that can justify the need of long runs. Lydiard argument that runs longer than 1h30m is outrate. That are no physical evidence of the benefit of a long run except in the case of long distance as it´s the marathon and longer distances where the prblem that´s to take the energy from lipids.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 4:07pm EST

re: wellnow

wellnow wrote:
I agree that lactate accumulatoion is assosiated with fatigue. But that does not mean that lactate causes fatigue. The association comes from the fact that the higher the excercise intensity, the more lactate you produce to help keep the pace going.

If that´s the lactate that causes fatigue i don´t know.

But don´t you knoww that the lactate keeps going move up after the effort is done ? If the reason that the lactate moves up is to help keep the pace going why the lactate continues to go higer after that you finish the run for minutes after and sometimes hours after that you stop the intense activity and you go home and stand and rest ? That´s not to fight the fatigue, what fatigue and what pace going ?

17 years ago 01/17/2008 4:22pm EST

re: HRE

HRE wrote:
Actually, training isn't essential either. Things just go better if you do some. same with long runs.

Not logical thinking. You and a couple of others here are saying THE BEST TRAINING FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE MUST HAVE LONG RUNS.

NO.

17 years ago 01/17/2008 5:10pm EST

re: IQ100

IQ100 -

A better question to ask HRE, Westcoast, CraigMac,and all the rest is HOW MANY RUNNERS HAVE THEY TURNED INTO INTERNATIONAL CLASS RUNNERS USING THE TRADITIONAL LONG BUILD UP LYDIARD SYSTEM?

Page 118 of 132

1 117 118 119 132

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Jump To A Page

Follow IQ100

Block IQ100

Follow CraigMac4h

Block CraigMac4h

Follow CraigMac4h

Block CraigMac4h

Follow IQ100

Block IQ100

Follow IQ100

Block IQ100

Follow IQ100

Block IQ100

Follow Hector Matos

Block Hector Matos

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.