LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

The aerobic condition that’s the key for build up to a good shape condition on every distance event. Mileage volume that’s one - a good one way – the common used one – but not the only one – way to improve the aerobic condition. This is common sense in 2008 and since long ago. Except for a few retired training methods like Richard Gibbens is one of them from the paranoia of hard anaerobic training and low mileage.

The mileage volume can be done by daily runs in the style of twice a day schedule or once a day with a long run. But what really matters is the total mileage you do weekly. No scientific evidence that a middle distance runner gets any extra benefit from the long run either than the short runs of the same mileage total. I know, we have articles from physiologists that try to demonstrate the benefit from long runs. Peter Snell did write (who else ?) but in my opinion that isn’t convincing. The nature, the pace, the extend, the characteristics of a long run that is so distant from the specific training zone that is out of specific training considered for the middle distance events.

No one could prove yet that it exist a level of SPECIFICITY for run events of 2min to 4min duration that short runs of the same total mileage can’t do. The aerobic condition is something with interest but the real specific goal will be to train in pace zones close to the one you go to compete in your event.

Of course that if the way Kevin builds up his mileage volume that’s by frequent use of long runs, that’s ok. If he likes it, goes well with it, nothing to contest. May be some they do 1 long run everyday or every 2 days on.

Long runs are effective to improve your aerobic condition because that’s a part of the total mileage not because are longer than the normal. How much a long run is more effective than the same total mileage weekly spread along the week done with no long run usage ?

The question is: what the long run brings to Kevin for his middle distance success that the same mileage run by short runs don’t ? The true example of all the other good runners that did similar to Kevin or best than Kevin performances shows that’s no evidence that the long run plays a major role in the whole package of the middle distance training context.

I know you don´t link it to the Lydiard discussion. I do. Why ? Because long runs that´s another dogma part of the Lydiard cult.

Pete,

I read that site too. It was generous of KS to share that information, as obviously the risk of trollism exists, but that other site requires registration to post, so it happens to be a much more pleasant crew of people there, than some of the trolls here.

I noticed with KS's paces, he seems to run at a pretty high level throughout his week...

I wonder if his 13 to 16 milers cover a lot of ground? Relatively speaking.

He's a great athlete nontheless.

And you are correct, his training does not look a lot like Lydiard. But his training looks individual-like...like borrowed from Daniels/Lydiard and others.

IQ100 wrote: I know you don´t link it to the Lydiard discussion. I do. Why ? Because long runs that´s another dogma part of the Lydiard cult.

In the discussion where I obtained this information, Kevin presents himself as believing in Daniels' methods, and refers often to Daniels' books. I don't think he mentioned Lydiard. That's not to say he hasn't been influenced by Lydiard (he'd have to answer that himself I guess), but he didn't specifically mention that he has been.

Wetcoast wrote: I noticed with KS's paces, he seems to run at a pretty high level throughout his week...

I didn't get the same impression. He specifically mentioned that he tends to do about 2.5 workouts each week (so I assume he meant five every two weeks, on average). Also, in discussing off days, he says he runs in Daniels' E-pace range, and was particular to say that it's not advisable to run faster than E-pace on easy days. Of course, his E-pace is much faster than mine or (presumably) yours.

Wasn't there a study that said something about the improvement of long runs versus time? I don't recall exactly, but I gathered that there was a kind of linear increase of improvement versus time invested for runs up to 1h45m, and then between 1h45m and 2h05m, the athlete receives a "double" bonus, with bigger improvements versus the extra effort. After 2h05, the runner starts experiencing diminishing returns. Does anyone ever argue a similiar benefit for 2x1 hour runs?

Lydiard said the 2 hour run was the key to improvement in his system. It is not dogma or cultish on the part of Lydiard enthusiasts. This "dogma" comes from Lydiard, and that is a historical fact that no one today can change.

I never understood long runs to be SPECIFIC training, but the benefit of a good aerobic base is to be able to do more SPECIFIC training. Two hour runs are the Lydiard way to a good aerobic base, but I will not argue that this is the only way for middle distance runners to build the necessary aerobic base.

Okay I have glanced back at the thread and I guess it is not as fast as I thought, but he's at the top and you are correct I am looking way up...at KS...

Mega talent.

Are you trying to imply that Lactate production causes acidosis? Robergs has clearly shown the biochemistry to disprove this, that lactate production consumes protons, not produces them.

You clearly haven't studied Roberg's text in detail, nor the arguments to and fro between him and Kemp and Lindinger.

You also state other points which I have to contest. Lactate is not an inneficient substrate the way you describe it. You have little knowledge of Brooks's cell to cell lactate shuttle hypothesis.

Also to state that lactate burns ATP, so what? so does pyruvate production.

You state "Respiratory acidosis occurs when CO2 rises to high."

no it doesn't, the rise in CO2 prodution is and invevitable consequence of increasing carbohydtrate oxidation, acidosis does not cause this, but co-incides with it. Acidosis is caused by non-mitochondrial ATP turnover.

You state:

"Lacate causes muscular fatigue by inhibiting excitation coupling of actin-myosin filaments(via reduced transience of calicum cations through sarcoplasmic reticulums?) Note, I a not quoting someone and forgetting to put the quotes around the information as some people do in debate. That's my interpreation of the information."

Your interpretation is wrong in my opinion, you are confusing acidosis with lactate production. The source of the protons in not lactate production, as has been shown in Robergs' text, and that of other researchers.

Has it really been proven that acidosis inhibits muscle contraction? I don't believe it has, but the two events do co-incide.

I am quite capable of thinking for myself. Why do you think I want to debate these and so many other points.

Tom you clearly want to cling to old ideas and not allow them to be challenged. I don't argue for the sake of arguing, that is a poor defence of your dogma.

You are younger than me, but you have already decided that science can show you nothing new. Don't you realize how that state of mind can entrap you?

Don't you realize that a gap between old school and new science will always form and widen, causing cynicism, mistrust and confusion?

Tom, please study Robergs, Brooks and Gladden's texts and enrich your knowledge.

You want to hold the upper hand in these debates, but you argue pseudoscientifically and wonder why people get frustrated with your dogma.

Why can't you just be more reasonable and reel your ego in about 1000 yards, enough to appreciate that some people have done a lot of research that is worth presenting, the research of the most brilliant minds is excercise physiology, such as Robergs and Brooks?

Sorry for the five or six or whatever it was posts. The first time I posted the reply I got a message saying that the conenction had failed. I tried a couple more times and got the same message, went back to the thread and didn't see the message there, tried another two or three times, got the same "conenction failed" message, and gave up.

To the topic; I suspect that perhaps any single element of training could be omitted but compensated for in other ways.

I have a friend who was once thrid in the NYC marathon in 2:13 while doing no single run longer than eoght miles. Does that prove that even marathon runners don't need long runs? How many heavy cigarette smokers need to live into their 80s, 90s, or beyond to allow the tobacco industry to argue with credibility that the links between smoking and serious illness is exagerrated? How many exceptions to the Rule do we need in order to disregard the Rule?

Milers need interval work, right? Yet Wilson Waigwa ran 3:56 and claimed that he never did any. So interval work maybe isn't essential to running a fast mile. Or do we just regard Waigwa and Chris Stewart, who did the aforementioned 2:13, as abberations? Does Lagat prove anything or is he an abberation?

Is the long run really just a result of thousands of people having a sentimental attachment to Arthur Lydiard? Unlikely. They're sort of hard to do and it's unlikely that so many people who run successfully would do them out of sentimental attachment. It would be easier to do the shoe lacing method as a sentimental attachment and bag the long runs, and anyway, you're still left with people like Cerutty, Ryun, and Sullivan, none of whom seem to have much sentimental attachment to Lydiard also doing them.

Now let's just hope I can get this up on only one try.

HRE.,

The Gebr show brought down the servers yesterday.

So this is why everything looked funked up.

!

There are exceptions to every rule. I know if I ran a long run of 8 miles only, I would gain wieght...and even if I didn't I couldn't complete a half marathon at any pace, never mind a full....

You continue to ignore reality and thus prove what some letsrun.com posters have said when they emailed to me: "Forget arguing with wellnow (Skuj). He'll argue the same point over and over and never see the light."

Have a good day! I'm out.

Light (malmo?:) thats quite interesting. But if you go back a page or two, you shall see that Craig said that the long run was ESSENTIAL for middle distance success. I then tried (successfully I think!) to show that this statement was NOT TRUE. Even HRE agrees with me now. He stated that Lagat doesn't do long runs, and we all know what Lagat has succeeded at the highest levels. I've argued that Coe also didn't care for regular long runs. The argument against the statement by Craig (who is doing a really good job here and I hope he doesn't see this part of the debate at Craig-bashing, unlike the IQ100 bashers) doesn't need further development or clarity or assertion. CLEARLY, THERE ARE MIDDLE DISTANCE RUNNERS WHO WON GOLD OR SET WR THAT DID NOT DO LONG RUNS. THEREFORE, LONG RUNS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE SUCCESS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.

Ok, we get it. Lactate is awesome.

But you totally ignored everything I said about physiology.

Is it true that as lactate production goes up, so to does the hydrolysis of ATP?

If that is true, then it is accurate to say that "the more lactate there is, the more the body's pH falls."

Lactate might not CAUSE acidosis but those two things are LINKED. So measuring fatigue by the amount of lactate in the tissues is a viable way to do so.

Ok, so TECHNICALLY, lactate production does not directly CAUSE acidosis. But it is associated with it, yes?

I'm sorry, but your heat stress theory just doesn't make sense to me. As lactate production rises, more ATP molecules undergo hydrolysis, which leads to the lowering of blood pH and eventually acidosis. No, lactate itself doesn't lead to acidosis. But can't you see how they're linked? Isn't it reasonable to say "well, if lactate is really high, then the body's pH is probably lower than normal."

And for the record, I think you're the one who needs to be a little more open minded. You seem really bogged down in the fact that lactate is aerobically broken down. Ok, it is. Wonderful. But that doesn't change the fact that more lactate there is, the more (indirectly) acidic the blood becomes. No, its not a direct cause and effect. But those two things are linked.

Simplified, more lactate = more fatigue. No, that's not the whole story. But for the purposes of coaching, that's an accurate way to judge fatigue. Say your athlete has a 1.5mmol of lactate at rest. You say "today you're doing 3x3000 at 10k pace, ok?

So after the first one he was 4mmol of lactate. Ok, he rests and goes again. After the second 3k, he was 15mmol of lactate. Is he more or less tired? If he gets 15mmol of lactate running at 10k pace, either he's not doing it right (going too fast) or he's not recovered from his last session or at least SOMETHING is wrong. Would you say "nah, athlete- lactate is an aerobic fuel, and the 10k is an aerobic event, so its not bad that you jumped from 4mmol to 15mmol. In fact, the mmol the merrier! Go do the third one!"

Wetcoast wrote:

Pete,

I read that site too. It was generous of KS to share that information, as obviously the risk of trollism exists, but that other site requires registration to post, so it happens to be a much more pleasant crew of people there, than some of the trolls here.

Westcoast, name the trolls here, and say why they are trolls, please.

Let's be clear, ok. HRE does NOT agree with you.

"NO",

No I am not malmo - but that doesn't matter.

My point was that you weren't trying, nor do I think you were successful. I read the two pages as they were written. You started out with "NO", and threatened, like a child, to keep repeating it until you got your way. Then, with each rebuttal, you started adding words or phrases a little bit at a time, sort of like a strip-tease. It took you two pages to finally say why, that you don't need a long run if you do get your mileage with double sessions. I think you could try something a little harder than just TYPING NO IN ALL CAPS.

IQ100, whatever anyone thinks of the rest of his posts, made the best case for you when he said, that single long runs aren't so important, but the key parameter is high weekly mileage.

I'm still wondering how long a run has to be, to be considered long, and if these guys running 2x45 minutes are worse off than if they did 1x90 minutes.

The idea behind steady logn runs is to develop the capillary beds, grow new ones - capillarization. Also, blood conditioning - but I don't know any of the scientific stuff to debate blood conditioning. Grow your heart, therefore you can use or transport more oxygenated blood, resulting in convering more ground faster....building the aerobic system.

Apparently, longer runs over 2 hours kept steady throughout, like keeping pressure on the cardio system is much more beneficial than 2 x 1 hour.

Also there is the fuel usage debate too.

HRE wrote:

I have a friend who was once thrid in the NYC marathon in 2:13 while doing no single run longer than eoght miles. Does that prove that even marathon runners don't need long runs?

Did i miss something ? We discuss long runs that Lydiard prescribes. The need of long runs FOR A LARGE RANGE OF EVENTS from 800m up to the half marathon. EXCEPT THE MARATHON. I repeat EXCEPT THE MARATHON. Namely we focus our discuss in the 800m and 1500m middle distance events. The marathon event thats an EXCEPTION in this discuss. No controversy in the marahon i guess.

The marathon is out of this discuss. Why that your 2:13 friend useless example ?

Don´t play me for dumb, or i advise you to be more clever and have the sense of logic. So, please don´t come with wrong examples of this your 2:13 friend that did the marathon without long runs. The marathon that´s a false example for the long run discuss.

It happens that i know personally 18 runners that did best than 2:13 your friend and they didn´t no long run never ever. What now ? Are that exceptions ?

Isnt that you and lydiardism that spend all the time with arguments and conclusions based in what Pete Snell did achieve ? So what do you prefer ? To take conclusion from an isolate case like the outstand Peter Snell a 800m-1500m runner that did 22 mile weekly long run. It happens that in the long run particularity peter is nothing but just an exception among most of the 800m olympic winners. Or do you prefer to take the conclusion from the larger number of runners (the rule) that did win the 800m and 1500m at high level while they didn´t do long runs regularly ?

You follow the rule or the exceptions in this case of the olympic middle distance winners or your lack of information is so much that you think that most of the 800m-1500m top runners do long runs ?

What are your loved examples Peter Snell, Jim Ryan, Ryun, Liqouri and Scott if not exceptions ? Exceptional runners that did exceptional performances. You follow the rule or the exception for most of the 800m-1500m-5000m-10000m runners at an high level sandard ?

Now what ? Where is the exception and where is the rule ?

Whats correct that is to interpret the need of the long run or dont – for any distance event based in the physiology knowledge and the training principles.what´s the physiologic need of the long run for each single distance event and to train according the principles. This is the choose of a correct training methodology. This is something Lydiardism cant understand. They follow the rule. As to say they follow Lydiard blindy.

Listen everyone...I'm all for productive conversation and even constructive criticism but right now there are simply two sides going back & forth and NEITHER side is going to give an inch.

I'm not Switzerland...I know which side I'm on...but I'm NOT going to participate in turning this great thread with a wealth of good information into your typical childish, moronic letsrun thread.

I wish there was an ignore option we had for certain posters here.

PLEASE!!

DON'T FEED (into) THE TROLLS!!!

D.,

You can report thread and Wejo may delete it. But first I'd like to save a books worth of useful training information from the real contributors on here like:

Nobby, HRE, Kim Stevenson, JTupper and a few others...:o)

You know what? I think I might actually do that. Pare it down to the size it needs to be and email it to everyone who wants it. Although there is a tonne of useful information on here, I bet I can halve it!