Lydiard Aerobic Phase

I grew up on Run To The Top. I studied Lydiard for breakfast, even before Nobby had heard of him. I adored the man. He devised a system, an organization. The had monumental influence and accomplishments.

I have absolutely no problem with what "Lydiard" espouses.

I have a huge problem with some people thinking that it is still 1965, and not recognizing that Lydiard was a link in a long chain. They hate hearing the c-word, but the worship and trying to place Lydiardism squares into round holes gets a bit much at times.

People get defensive because they are so emotionally attached to a certain system.

So you agree with IQ100 that Lydiardism has evolved into somewhat of a cult?

There were a lot of things that the "real IQ100" used to say that I agreed with, but not all. There are attitudes that border on personality-worship. Maybe there was a time when I applauded Coe if he farted.

I should add that this emotional attachment goes both ways. I cannot deny that in these debates, my complete emotional love of "Coe-Martin" and what that system has done for me has kept me from being less than completely subjective. (I'm sure we shall now hear that Coe-Martin = Lydiard Redux.) :)

And I should add, when I say I have no problem with what Lydiard espoused, this is when placed into an historical context.

Running is Science and Art. Maybe the Science has evolved to a lesser degree than the artistic application of it. We are still trying to do what Alfred Shrubb tried to do, essentially.

Hey you HRE pall or clown that´s what you name me. I don´t know what fits best to name you but clown that is good.

When you stupid will understand that what we are discuss here aren´t examples or isolate cases. We are discuss the Lydiard training method - the original one from what Lydiard did wrote and turn public as a method. We are not discuss John Davies or whatever Lydiard coach influenced coach did eventually, i reapeat - John Davies eventually he did different to what Lydiard wrote and prescribe.

Where in the Lydiard training Lydiard advises intervals during the base build block ? He doesn´t. That is what matters what are the Lyfiard training principles based in what he said or wrote or prescribe or turn out public.

Thwe Lydiard absence to consider interval training whatever and the refuse to consider any intermittent training format during the aerobic build block that is what really matters, not your stupid example that is out of the Lydiard consideration.

Also i have one post of Nobby he wrote sometime ago on this LRC board that he sraongly refuses to consider every intermittent traning format duirng the aerobic base block as be Lydiard traning - from he fartlek to the intrevals or repetitons or simply aerobic runs done by the intermittent format. I still remember Nobby own words about the refuse of the interest of doing such intremittent training formats during the build up aerobic bloc. He said "this is not Lydiard training". Once again. Who else than the "Pope" to have a refutable opinion of what is Lydiard and what isn´t ?

What ? You said "as long as you don´t get out of breath" ? What ?

The Lydiard hesitancy is something he told you or can you prove by the Lydiard writing about his own method that he said it ?

Once for all you may undertsand this. The Lydiard training shall be understood commented and analised by what he wrote that is his own raining method, not from what he did in a certain day or to a single person.

[quote]not a fanatic wrote:

naf,

your argument that intermittent training is an essential part of basic preparation appears to be in contrast with Lydiard.

This is a solid point of difference. You would have to say that Lydiard in fact rejected interval training during this period but he sure as well knew about it. Why did he reject it would be a good question.

For me a steady state rhythm should be established before that rhythm is modulated with an increasingly larger and larger amplitude.

So steady state is developed first

Then fartlek would be the first stage of modulation

Then intervals

Then repetitions

Then just pure speed work and recovery leading into racing

The steady state might begin at 6min/km initially and progress all the way down to the 3:teens/km

Fartlek might vary from the 6min pace to below 3min/km initially, just an subtle increase in amplitude.

Intervals may be around 3:00 - 2:30/km ie 60-72/400m, a further increase

Repetitions from 2:30 - sub 2.00/km ie sub48-60/400m (sub24/200), and more amplitude

Speed work - faster than this up to maximum intensity (to our maximum amplitude) - which is also worked on with low volume high intensity training such as the strides throughout preparation.

This is just following metaphysics i guess

first establish the rhythm

get it stable and allow it to become steady and strong

then strengthen that rhythm further through testing it

testing it through progressively higher and higher levels of fatigue

The really important question i have for myself is WHEN to move from one to other other? If we have a competition schedule to prepare for then that decision may already be made. Corners may need to be cut in order to fit with this imposed timing. Without a competition schedule how could a coach tell, without doubt, when an athlete should move onto a different type of training, a different stimulus. I've got some ideas on it theoretically and i also see it evidenced in training all the time. Six weeks is about it for a person already in steady training. Eight to nine for someone intitally returning to training. Anything above that for someone fresh to it.

This is the first stage plateau that occurs. The athlete is on top of their training for the first time and riding it a bit. They now require the first major change in training. We have a number of tools we can manipulate such as volume in two different ways as well as intensity. Volume as a total over a period of time say a week and volume in a single session. We manipulate all three of these variables over time with the intention to grow all three. So in the end we have a longer single run, a higher total volume and more time spent at the correct intensity level once we have built up to it.

Arthur says get to the volume first and then the intensity will take care of itself. I have to agree with this. Simply spending more time at a slower pace will automatically start giving you a faster pace, especially so once the volume becomes limited. For some individuals 100miles will be a reasonable challenge. For others it sill be a struggle and so, according to some natural differences, a lower amount must be allowed as long as the ultimate intention remains there to continue the attempt to increase this total. Snell is the obvious example here. Everyone has a different starting point. Snell has a lower natural aerobic and a higher natural anaerobic than most MD runners i see.

Once the volume has been established and the intensity has been established over continuous longer running the second plateau has been reached. Again a major change in training is needed. Again we can manipulate a number of variables but which is the first one we should choose? We have decided that the appropriate intensity at volume so far is enough and we have become established at that so the continued gains are becoming more minimal. We can continue to develop these slower gains because the aerobic systems development is open ended although these gains are now being made in a slower process than initially. Or we can start to manipulate the amplitude of the rhythm we are on.

First step i guess is to increase the resistance through gravity and hills do this nicely. A few hills throughout preparation can increase in volume, length or gradient after the second plateau has been reached. The other options i guess are fartlek, continuing to add more mileage, start running mileage at a faster pace, prefatiguing oneself prior to a long run etc.

If hills (increased muscular resistance) is chosen over the other options then once they have been established and then stabilised the third plateau has been reached. From here another major change is required. It is here Lydiard will switch aerobic development into aerobic maintenance and so the focus shifts from the aerobic to the anaerobic ever so slightly, but enough to change category. From then on we are in anaerobic world and i think the main difference is whether 2 or 3 hard sessions a week are best.

Here i can draw in my own experience. When one is optimising everything in their life to be able to train more and more efficiently you find certain natural limits. Three times a week for any specific quality is the ideal. Once is for maintenance with a slow decline. Twice is for maintenance with slow developement. Three is for optimal development although four is possible irregularly. The optimal is alternating days with the occasional double day of recovery if required. As there are seven days in a week i find it better to go to 4 days in a week with 2 consecutive days on after 3 has been established and stabilised. This cannot be maintained for many weeks in a row in my opinion.

So this is how i see the process of development. We change a major variable once we have reached a plateau. Between each plateaus we allow a lot of variation of all of the variables with the intention to find our natural limits and then to increase them.

All you need is to join the Lydiard Foundation. You will be wellcome. They have the solution for your doubt. Besides you may have serious discuss on Lydiard Foundation Forum. Not like this one LRC board that is plenty of trollism and idiots like me. This board have clowns like me that the only thing we do is to contest the perfect Lydiard training and we are obssessed to put Nobby down down down. People like me that is what Lydiard took all his life to fight. People like me that i never did nothing for this sport and i´m from local category and the best i did as a coach is a local runner. I never been in the Olympics and no one of my runners was never ever been in the olympics. I´m a bug of the existence. The best i can do is to copy Renato´s posts.

All you need is to join the Lydiard Foundation. You will be wellcome. They have the solution for your doubt. Join Lydiard. the Big Brother...excuse me the Big Father of Jogging.

I am not naf but I can post as him, and I'm wondering if others are doing the same now.

naf

you would hold more weight if you put down some of your own opinions.

did you know that your christian name is contained in your screen handle - well if you were the female version it would

To have your agreement with my principles is acceptable. But your suggestion of "peronality-worship" brings back the suggestion of cult behavior. Perhaps you were misinterpreted. The idea of applause for one's methane expulsion also causes me to question my English skills. Perhaps someone can explain what this has to do with training philosophy?The Coe-Martin genuflection is a worthy one, but not the point of "emotional love." Again your language is curious to me. I happen to know that both of those men are married to women. What you do is your choice, but do not expect your romance to be reciprocated. They are like the arrow.Finally your suggestion that science of running has evolved less than art is ludicrous. We are alive in an era of burgeoning science which has led to many understandings of the human body and its limits. The art is important but even DaVinci would disagree with you here. I suggest you read some books to learn what is available in the sciences.

Skuj wrote:

There were a lot of things that the "real IQ100" used to say that I agreed with, but not all. There are attitudes that border on personality-worship. Maybe there was a time when I applauded Coe if he farted.

I should add that this emotional attachment goes both ways. I cannot deny that in these debates, my complete emotional love of "Coe-Martin" and what that system has done for me has kept me from being less than completely subjective. (I'm sure we shall now hear that Coe-Martin = Lydiard Redux.) :)

And I should add, when I say I have no problem with what Lydiard espoused, this is when placed into an historical context.

Running is Science and Art. Maybe the Science has evolved to a lesser degree than the artistic application of it. We are still trying to do what Alfred Shrubb tried to do, essentially.

naf

in the simplest of terms it comes down to this

if you want to get healthier and then stay healthy as you train, the Lydiard approach is a great one

if you want to quickly reach your apparent potential then intervals all year round is the way.

One way takes patience but fortunately this is one of the easiest qualities for a middle distance runner to develop. Sprinters, bah!

The other way panders to our incessant need for instant and continuous gratification. Check the watch every session. Strictly control every aspect of training including the mileage. Panic when a bad session occurs. etc

See if a coach can work with an athletes posture and their rhythm and their technical and their fitness/bio-motor qualities, then all things can be considered in balance with one another. If one or more of these elements is missing in the coaches mental handbook, then the remainder of the elements are over-emphasised and receive too much attention. Furthermore, when decisions are made about only those elements under attention, those very decisions may inadvertently have a negative effect on the elements not under attention. It won't be known if the hidden element is not known.

By the way i place posture ahead of everything else and this is quite deliberately. I feel the next generation of coach will have a well developed and even holisitic of understanding of human posture. They will be able to identify which elements are being over or under utilised and have methodologies to address imbalances on this level.

Yeah. Definitely not the IQ100 I knew and definitely "I-know-who". Slightly humorous. Good bumping action. Carry on.

sim, those 2 choices are "too simple" and too absolute, and it paints a negative picture of "UnLydiard Methods".

Skuj wrote:

sim, those 2 choices are "too simple" and too absolute, and it paints a negative picture of "UnLydiard Methods".

Skuj,

those are the two extremes. Every method would have it's own blend of those two.

For health reasons jogging can be a method utilised. When trying to train past your potential constantly a modification already is needed. If moving from the health stage of running to the competitive i would imagine step one is to start doing the mileage faster and faster until you find your limit.

Would this be step one in that transition. From health to readying for competition?

Step two would be increased resistance once mileage levels are satisfied. Or would one increase intensity? This is where things divide once people are ok with an initial period of high mileage.

I'm not against methods because they are non-Lydiard Skuj. That's not my measuring stick. My measuring stick is balance. If a system is balanced then i like. If a system is adaptable in it's balance i like even more. If a system is not only adaptable in it's balance for subtle individual differences but also for the variations that occur over time in each individual, i like the most. The first two bits can be quite systematic, however the third requires a subtlty that goes beyond system, beyond plan, it is adaptability in the moment from day to day, session to session and even set by set if you are Mihaly Igloi. I wish i could also look inside his head a bit deeper. Juz, that stuff on training with KD on trackchat helped heaps thanks mate.

cheers

I see your point.

When the Lydiard adept does fartlek he doesn´t Holmer-Holander fartlek training. He does Lydiard fartlek.

When the Lydiard adept does intremitent interval training he doesn´t Gersheler-Reindell interval training. He does Lydiard intervals.

When the Lydiard adept does repetitions he doesn´t Polish trials. He does Lydiard trials.

When the Lydiard adept does the long run training he doesn´t van Aaken training. He does Lydiard long run.

When the Lydiard adept does hill drills he doesn´t Cerruty hills. He does Lydiard hill drills.

So why the hell when i do my aerobic training 100miles i do Lydiard 100mles ?

I forget 2 ones.

When the Lydiard adept does double periodisation he does Lydiard double periodisation despite he refused to use it for so long.

When the Lydiard adept does the 6 weeks of anaerobic block of training that Lydiard confessed that is influenced from the germans. No that Lydiard adept he Lydiard anaerobic periodisation.

well i wasn't talking Lydiard at all, i was talking basic principles. It just so happens that Lydiard's method follows these principles. As do many others. If you want tog et the full benefit of the Lydiard way i guess you shuld follow all of these generic elements that you have mentioned in the specific pattern Lydiard mentioned.

If not you can do whatever you want. Foloow another person's holistic method or shop around and take bits and pieces from lots of methods and construct your own, if you are brave enough.

For anyone following this amusment ride i'd suggest if you are just starting out on training seriously you should initially follow a complete way instead of the make up your own approach.

The chances are the method chosen has already established internal auto-feedback systems to keep you naturally on the right track. The chances are also that it has balanced itself out over time so that it is impossible to hide any weakensses. This is what you really want. Exposure of the weaknesses and then processes to train them.

I like Lydiard because it is a very simple straight forward approach. There are many other approaches that tend towards a greater degree of complication so if you like numbers and statstics maybe that is the way for you. naf should be able to help you with that direction.

sim wrote:

There are many other approaches that tend towards a greater degree of complication so if you like numbers and statstics maybe that is the way for you.

This statement has much validity, really. On any music forum you'll find debates about why Radiohead is great and why Coldplay sucks. On any movie forum they'll be discussing why Titanic never should have won the Oscar for best picture. Running is no different. Different personality types are attracted to different systems and outlooks on coaching.

And some of us want to be engineers or scientists and some of us want to be in the military and some of us want to play bongos on the shores of the Pacific and paint. You get my drift. Coaching is Artform. These debates will never end. Emotional attachment to our system of choice is to be expected. We runners are an intense bunch.

I wonder if Bowling has this kind of thing going on?

sim wrote:

well i wasn't talking Lydiard at all, i was talking basic principles.

If not you can do whatever you want. Foloow another person's holistic method or shop around and take bits and pieces from lots of methods and construct your own, if you are brave enough.

Here is where you take the risk to be banish from the Lydiard Foundation or considered an infidel if you don´t follow Lydiard at all.

sim wrote:

I like Lydiard because it is a very simple straight forward approach.

There are many other approaches that tend towards a greater degree of complication so if you like numbers and statstics maybe that is the way for you. naf should be able to help you with that direction.

What ? Lydiard very simple ? From where did you get that conclusion ? I would agree with this if yiu were a jogger and he starts by doing something basic as the aerobic runs.

Take a look

When i beginner reads this document 45 pages plenty of instructions and details with Nobby "the Pope" annotations, kind of labyrinth.

Just an example:

WHEN YOU RUN A MARATHON, BE SURE THAT YOU:

1. Keep to you normal balanced meals the days prior to the race. Protein, carbo-hydrate & fat are all

necessary for a balanced metabolism in the marathon race.

2. Eat up to 8oz. of honey supplementary to your normal meals the two days prior to the race.

3. Finish eating about three hours before the start.

4. Eat a light breakfast preferably of cereals, honey and toast with tea or coffee.

5. Have good fitting clothes and shoes that will not chafe and are suitable for the conditions on the day.

6. Use lubricant (olive oil, lanolin) under arms and crotch.

7. When putting on your shoes, force your heels hard into the backs of the shoes before lacing firmly,

but

not to tight. To stop foot movement inside the shoes that leads to blistering.

8. Do not run much before the start. Save your energy.

9. Stretch and loosen a little.

10. Start well within your capabilities and warm up to the run as you go. Hold yourself in check. It will

pay off later.

11. Do not exaggerate your knee lift. From the start, try to relax and not lift the knees higher than

necessary to save the muscles lift the legs.

12. Ignore the other runners. Run at efforts that suiot you.

13. Prepare electrolyte drinks for a hot day. Make the mixture weaker than directed. Add some honey.

14. Do not take salt tablets.

15. Drink water and electrolyte drinks throughout the race on a hot day. A glass just prior to the start can

help.

16. Keep your body wet. Sponging is the best insurance against dehydration and high body

temperatures.

17. Do not surge in the race and waste energy.

18. Do not use anti-perspirants.

Funny don´t you think ? 18 rules to memorise and be done.

Easy ? What´s easy ? You have douzen of training methods easier and sipmple understanddable and straight than the Lydiard one.