Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

I repeat my argument. Lydiard training is outdate somehow. Don´t expect that I will show other variants that the existent ones: aerobic, anaerobic, speed, endurance, strength endurance, mileage, volume, quality, quantity. This don´t change. What changes is the organization of that variables, the modern in.-date training uses that same variables different way than what Lydiard training does.

Nobby has addressed these issues. What's the problem?

You write too much, so much that I wonder about your sanity.

Part of the problem I see is the evolution of what Arthur put together. By his own admission it took years to do and the Halberg/Snell/Magee/ Baillie/Puckett/Julian Road show took it to the World. He was not a young man when he did that. As time went on and Arthur talked with others he "tweaked" what he did. I can recall having discussions with some of his "Originals" and they said the biggest changes they saw was in the "final weeks"of Race preparation and that was still going on. In addition Arthur was not only helping top athletes he was helping anyone who wanted to put one foot in front of the other better than they had ever done before.

On top of this was the lifestyle of the athletes .... Everyone had a job .. they worked 8 hours a day then ran (Halberg et al as well) .. this was occurring right through the strata of New Zealand life..... It was not until he got to Finland where he saw "full time" athletes.

I feel if Arthur had been 25 years younger you would have seen further development to what is been argued here.

The biggest aspect of this with him is his personality .... He was an amazing character .. he drove this thing ... I can recall one of my Tutors at Teachers College .. saying after he had spoken about what he did she wanted to get out and run .. such was his motivational ability.

We are arguing ... "bits and pieces" .... Snell never ran any faster over 1500 because he had never run one before the 1964 Olympics and was retired within a year of that.

Part of the problem I see is the evolution of what Arthur put together. By his own admission it took years to do and the Halberg/Snell/Magee/ Baillie/Puckett/Julian Road show took it to the World. He was not a young man when he did that. As time went on and Arthur talked with others he "tweaked" what he did. I can recall having discussions with some of his "Originals" and they said the biggest changes they saw was in the "final weeks"of Race preparation and that was still going on. In addition Arthur was not only helping top athletes he was helping anyone who wanted to put one foot in front of the other better than they had ever done before.

On top of this was the lifestyle of the athletes .... Everyone had a job .. they worked 8 hours a day then ran (Halberg et al as well) .. this was occurring right through the strata of New Zealand life..... It was not until he got to Finland where he saw "full time" athletes.

I feel if Arthur had been 25 years younger you would have seen further development to what is been argued here.

The biggest aspect of this with him is his personality .... He was an amazing character .. he drove this thing ... I can recall one of my Tutors at Teachers College .. saying after he had spoken about what he did she wanted to get out and run .. such was his motivational ability.

We are arguing ... "bits and pieces" .... Snell never ran any faster over 1500 because he had never run one before the 1964 Olympics and was retired within a year of that.

Well, I did ask him to talk a little more about modern training. Well, I asked for a bulleted top-5 list, but, it seems that deeper analysis is required for a better understanding.

Speaking for myself, I think I pretty much know Nobby's viewpoint, but felt there was more about this "dissenting" opinion I wanted to know, since it comes up so frequently.

Mr. Rekrunner:

Thank you for your input. But, in all seriousness, though, what you have suggested is pretty much what I did last couple of years when I followed Lydiard training. I worked on FOUNDAMENTAL or GENERIC by doing aerobic running and my coach’s friend was giving me gradual increase in speed with interval training-but he mixed the distances by going them up and down instead of constantly lengthening the fast runs-and finally did some time trials of 1000m, 1200m and some 800m. With intervals though he didn’t want me to time my runs. He was timing me but he didn’t want me to time them myself so I didn't know how fast I was running and it may not be SPECIFIC enough??? But here’s my question, isn’t the whole idea of training putting our body to subject to a certain stress we expect to face in the race? So in other words, if I try to run, say 4.40 for 1600m, then try to run 4.38 tomorrow, 4.36 the next and so on and so forth? With the outdated training method, I feel Lydiard had taken out all the elements separately-we have long slow, then get our legs strong by doing hills AFTER we developed our stamina, then AFTER we strengthen our legs, work on speed and/or anaerobic capacity and finally put them all together in the coordination phase? I’ve been reading Mr. Canova’s posts too and he seems to advocate more mixture throughout the year. But if SPECIFICITY is so important now, and if Kenyan marathon runners do long fast runs to prepare themselves for a fast marathon, wouldn’t the same concept be applied to running a 1600m? I don’t quite understand the % of each day’s workout-Can we do 2000m? Can we run as slow as 5.00 per mile? And, to your point of not doing the same kind of training every day, then why not do it every other day and do them even closer to race pace (more SPECIFIC) and that will be a lot like First Program. Since First Program seems to be more scientifically proven and introduced more recently, backed up by researches, is that what people like Dr. Li and/or Lagat base their training on? That article was very interesting but it really didn’t say anything about specific training. But there’s another thread and it seems most people talk about Lagat being a low-mileage runner. If he, as a 5000m runner, runs 5000m at close to race pace (specificity) every other day with 2-mile warm up and cool down, that’ll add up to 21-28 miles a week. Mr.Kadafi seems to elaborate Dr.Li’s training so I was hoping he could add some lights to how he trains as opposed to Lydiard approach….

Mr. Khadaffi:

Seriously, thank you for your response. In all seriousness however, I do question what your point of all this hatred and argument and name calling toward all the Lydiardites if you, and I seriously don’t mean to be disrespectful when I say this, don’t have any specific “other” approach in place of Lydiard approach. I thought you were basically telling us that Lydiard training was outdated and it’s no good following it. I thought I tried to read all your posts carefully and what I’ve come out of is very event specific workout schedule. I felt Lydiard had at least a generic formula that anybody can follow or modify and follow if he or she wanted to. I thought you studied Lydiard training inside and out and came to the conclusion that it is no good. I thought you had this mission, you might call it, or someone else even called it “Crusade” to remove Lydiard approach and switch it all to this modern approach. My coach wants me to follow Lydiard because we had good results last 2 years with it and I’m OK with it. But I was interested in giving this so-called more updated modern approach a try-what have I got to lose? I may improve so much better with it you never know. But if you don’t have any specific advice to change that approach which, in your opinion, is so much better than Lydiard, what’s the point? Sir, I don’t mean to argue or anything-you definitely sound like you have a great credential as a coach and, frankly, I’m a little scared of you. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of you and you come after me from here on. But it is sad to see all this hatred and name calling for basically “nothing”. I never felt pressured to follow Lydiard training. For all I can see, all those so called “Lydiardites” seem very genuine and sincere to answer whoever had a question on Lydiard training. I don’t feel they are “cult” at all. And, after all, if Lydiard training is not that bad, why hate them so much?

eurodonkey wrote:

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

What is the runner that does best training method from the three ? Of course that is the slower runner, the one that runs 400m in just 60secs but 800m in 2:04.

I LIKE this argument. With a pathetic 400m PB relative to my 800, it makes me feel better.

But aren't you assuming that the athlete developed their sprint/400 potential reasonably well (weights, speed work etc), and had a few serious attempts at the distance? There are quite a lot of people who came in from the cross country end, and either never realised their 'speed potential', or never did the races to measure it.

It´s just a hypothetic example to show that the slow runner is the best coached eventually or the faster runner it´s not necessary the best coached

.

This my example destroys the early naive Lydiard kind of sentence "Lydiard the perfect training", "Lydiard the maker of champions", Peter Snell the only one to double 800m-1500m olympic wins". This kind of sentences doesn´t prove nothing at all related to one training method. This might be very good marketing, good propaganda, but it´s not any methodologic reason to prove the value of the Lydiard method or every other method. If the guys that did use it in the past as argument, as i remember Wetcoast he did, if he imagines how absurd he is he willn´t post it. Don´t need to be sage, don´t need to be gestalt, don´t need to be intuitive, don´t need to be holistic, but the guy that in the heat of one coach debate, send to the debate such kind of sentence, immediatly shows he does poor training understand.

My trainng isn´t the issue. My training only matters to my runners. I´m not interest in post my training.

My interest here is the methodology debate, not my indivial training.

Lydiardites said so many things, wrote books, did interviews, they post here so frequently with the Lydiard theme, and i guess they have one institution to represent Lydiard. But i´m alone, my training is my own, and i´m alone and i don´t see reason to start that debate.

However Lydiard training is a project, a group project that want to turn that public.

The day they will post the Lydiard schedules that only the adepts of the cult eventually they know what is and that some of them they say that is different training that we thing it is, on that day i also can go deeper in my training. But for now we need to be satisfied with what exists and it´s all.

If it´s hard to read me and you think i´m no interest i advise you to don´t loose your time. Don´t read me.

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

Mr. Skuj

I didn´t post the 2 last posts signed with the Khadaffi out of power nickname despite it´s my style of writing.

This is absolute bullshit!! You screwed up and you cant admit it.

I'm flattered you ask me, but I think I'm going to have to disappoint you. Unless I know your history, your strengths, your weaknesses, and your daily training, and how that works, I don't think I can give you a specific program. You say you are already doing Lydiard. If you are doing it right, I think you can still do that for a few years, as long as you see improvements. Actually, if you are a high school age runner, and you and your coach aren't sure about what you are doing, I'm more inclined to steer you towards Daniels Running Formula, as the training plans and paces are well defined and easier to follow. If you want to improve how you follow Lydiard, you should go to the Lydiard Foundation website and talk to the people there. There are presentations which give some practical recommendations for building your schedule. If you want modern training advice, don't ask me -- I'm the one asking that question. But just the same, I will mention a couple points below.So my first question, are you in high school? I'm going to borrow Canova's phrase that "you build your aerobic house, then you add furniture". If you are in high school, you still need to build your aerobic house before worrying about if you are getting enough SPECIFICITY. I would say in high school, a typical milestone is to work up from 40 mpw to 70 mpw, not to mention a couple "Summer of Malmos" and maybe "Winter of Malmos".I'll borrow another "Hadd" analogy of "squeezing toothpaste". Maybe Lydiard can squeeze 95%, while Kadaffi and Canova can squeeze 98%. You are still at 70%, so still have a lot of training options that will reap improvements.Cabral and Hadd wrote the "2 kinds of runners" thread. Which one are you? This might lead me to suggest some "aerobic" 10x400 reps at 10K pace, with short recoveries, in your aerobic phase.And of course, one purpose of training is to prepare you for race conditions. But I don't know of anyone who runs like you suggest, with 1600m time trials everyday. Usually most plans don't stray too far from 3 quality workouts (1 speed, 1 tempo, 1 long) per week, with the remaining workouts easy or recovery. You should do your "time trial" once, or maybe twice at most, per week. And only at a point in your training when you have developed the proper support for it. Training, even the modern way with emphasis on SPECIFICITY still requires some variety of paces and distances, and the super-compensation principle means that after hard workouts or races, you need time to recover/heal -- that's when the improvements come. If you race everyday, you will quickly get stale, times will stagnate and drop, and you will basically have to finish your season prematurely, if you don't injure yourself first.You say you are following Lydiard, but I don't know what that means to you. Are you doing 2 hour long runs? Are you doing 100 mpw? Are you doing all the "classic" phases in order, taking 24 weeks to prepare for "THE RACE"? Your sample weeks are 21-28 mpw, and doesn't look like anything close to Lydiard. That's too low even for low mileage enthusiasts.Don't forget, even the "outdated" Lydiard approach would have you doing SPECIFIC 1600m time trials in the COORDINATION phase, each week progressively faster. Also some 800m races, and 3200m races. The time trials are SPECIFIC, and the other racing is also highly relevant.If you want to keep your Lydiard training plan, but want to modify it to include more SPECIFICITY, that can easily fit in the ANAEROBIC and COORDINATION phases. (This doesn't "fix" everything Kadaffi mentioned, just adds SPECIFIC workouts). Suppose your goal is a 4:20 for 1600m, and you think this is realistic. Instead of "run one, jog one, 'til you're tired" approach to intervals, one training goal during the ANAEROBIC phase would be to improve your speed, and get used to your goal race pace, by interval training with SPECIFIC pace of 100m in 16 seconds, 200m in 32-33 seconds, and 400m in 65 seconds. Then your training in the COORDINATION phases would include a progression that extends the time you can continuously hold the pace. For example, 4x400 the first week, 3x600 the next week, 2x800 the following week. You might also include some 1200m, 1600m, and 2000m time trials, to determine and correct any weaknesses of speed or stamina.I think you shouldn't compare yourself to Kenyan runners, including Lagat. Low mileage for Kenyans is still 80 mpw. I don't know Lagat's mileage but maybe it's unusually low, like 50-60 mpw, because he was a miler. That means he's a unique exception. In any case, he's a proven world class miler, with some 25 years of running experience, who's moving up to the 3K and 5K. And I think I read he increased his mileage to support the longer events. As I mentioned before, I came across a Canova quote that Kenyans usually have 12-15 years of long fast running in them, by the time they are 19. They've built their aerobic house.You mentioned the FIRST program, and the words "scientifically proven". I'm not sure if you mean the same, but I know about a FIRST program. When I looked at FIRST, they do 3 runs per week, one speed workout, one tempo, and one long run, plus suggest two cross trainings, e.g. swimming or cycling. These guys were tri-athletes. There training includes all the typical quality workouts, but none of the easy/recovery days, replacing them with rest or cross training. Regarding their scientific studies, unless things have changed in the last couple years, they lack controls. Essentially they have a bunch of success stories, but it's not reliably compared against other programs to conclude if it's better or worse.Hope this helps clarify a few things.

Just a couple more points. I mentioned Daniels Running Formula, not because I think it's better than Lydiard, or more modern training, but simply because, for beginning coach/athletes, it's good, comprehensive, well-defined, and I think it's harder to get things wrong. It worked for German Fernandez.

I also remembered, if you want to stay with the Lydiard approach, here's a new website, set up by the Lydiard Foundation, that you might find interesting:

http://www.go2lydiard.com/

I don't have any direct experience with it (nor do I get any kind of commission), but it looks quite flexible (e.g. 12 week or 24 week plans, with training 4, 5, or 6 days a week), complete with training paces, and built-in feedback mechanisms, and for any questions, you can also talk directly with the foundation members.

Thank you, rekrunner. No I’m not disappointed. In fact, that’s pretty much what my coach and his friend had always been telling me and, once again, that’s pretty much what I’ve read about Lydiard and, as I said, I’ve got some good results with it. I have no problem doing it again (I’m heading for my final track season). But, once again, although I’m not trying to be disrespectful or anything like that at all but I do have to say I am a little disappointed with Mr. Khadaffi’s response. I guess I just wanted to peek into something “different” and possibly “new”. I thought maybe perhaps I thought there was a “shortcut”? Trying to run fast and hard day after day sounds interesting and may be a bit fun too. I’d have to say, with Lydiard, it is kind of fun to mix things up everyday and we are doing different kinds of workout each day and each phase. I would have to say I’m not too good with base phase-I have trouble doing long slow run day after day. It’s a bit boring. I do about 60mpw during the winter and sometimes, not all :), I try to do that during the summer too. I do my long run is usually 12 to 15 miles. 8 is something I thought for my “new” program but, as I said, I erased it because I thought it may not be “specific” enough according to Mr. Khaddafi. I do that about 6-8 weeks. Well, maybe more like 6-7… 6 weeks. We do hill training for about 4 weeks and, if anything, we sometimes do intervals less than 4 weeks-maybe 2 to 3 weeks. I have to say, half way into hill training, I always seem to get some “itch” and want to get on the track and run fast. I’ve read most of what coach Canova has to say and, like HRE had said it before, I felt basically his pattern is pretty similar to Mr. Lydiard’s training. But I really felt Mr. Khadaffi is so outwardly against Lydiard type of program and saying it’s no good and Li/Lagat training is “up-to-date” while Lydiard is “outdated”, I really thought he has something “new” to share. I always thought Daniel’s training is also similar to Lydiard. I heard McMillan Elite is doing Lydiard training. So what’s left and what’s new would be maybe what I thought would be “specific” training program (by the way, like I said, 21-28mpw is based on this “modern” program-or what I thought of a modern program pattern. I usually do at least double of that amount). Mr. Khadaffi seems to talk about “methodology” but it sounds like he is actually talking about himself and his own training and coaching. He obviously gets great success, according to him, with it but that won’t help me or anybody else. Frankly it sounds a lot like him vs rest of people who do Lydiard-including myself, my coach, my coach’s friend- instead of modern methodology vs Lydiard methodology is it not? Because there doesn’t seem to be any “methodology” unless I’m missing something. Like I said, he sounds scarey to me and thank god for anonymity! :) But as much as he trashes everybody and everybody else, I can’t get anything concrete from him or what he had so far said. I’m sure hands-on coaching is almost always better than just reading a book or following some bogus schedule in a book. But I don’t think that’s anything “new” or “modern” or “up-to-date”… I was actually hoping to see something like “doing a long run at 30% slower than your race pace (4.40 mile to 7-minute-mile pace) is no good (which I think he is saying) so instead, do maximum twice the race distance (in my case, 3200m) at 5% slower than your race pace…” something like that. That kind of makes sense to me. Then my question would be, then would I do that year round? Or would I do that only the final 6 weeks? If final 6 weeks, what would I do 12 weeks before that? If we need to do over-distance (which you had suggested, Mr. rekrunner) then it looks very much like Lydiard without hill training. Then what’s the argument? All I heard was Lydiard is no good. You need to be specific. Well, I thought I came up with a very race-specific training plan that’s very different from Lydiard and he declined to respond to that. Instead, you gave me a insight in depth of basically how I should go back and continue Lydiard training, which interestingly Mr. Khadaffi had told me as well. My coach is a Lydiard guy and his friend who gives me the actual schedule is a Lydiard guy too. Then I just didn’t see any point of all this argument and nastiness.

When I was in middle school, there was a time I just ran a mile as hard as I could day after day! :) It was kind of fun. My times came down a bit for a while. But I know what you mean, Mr. rekrunner. It didn’t go forever. I felt I at least learnt to warm-up and cool-down when I moved up to HS!! :) I know Lydiard takes patience. If someone told me that I need to go long and slow for a few months before go run a mile as hard as I could day after day, I would have ignored that and stick with a hard mile run. If someone asks me right now which is a better “methodology”, Lydiard or run a mile hard day after day, I think I’m smart enough to say Lydiard. But what I was doing a few years back SPECIFIC training methodology-because it sounds very specific to me? Is it actually better to go that way? That’s what I wanted to find out.

With regards to First Program, it does make sense what you say and I actually thought of it that way too. But, again, I guess I was sort of getting a bit confused. If SPECIFIC is really the way to go about and if Mr. Khadaffi is really correct and that’s how Kenyan runners do their training, less mileage, more quality, more close to actual race effort, then I wasn’t sure how else you could go but do something more like First Program. No intervals, no long runs, no “junk miles” and less mileage and more “SPECIFIC”… That sounds very much like First Program to me, is it not?

Thank you, Mr. rekrunner, for detail explanation. Really appreciate it. I think with this, I’ll just go back to Lydiard and see how that works out. I guess what you had said makes sense and now I can go back with Lydiard with more confidence. The program does make sense too.

Noticed something interesting? The kid asked a long serious and SPECIFIC question: Khadaffi can't answer it, won't answer it, and he disappears...

So I just want to make this clear.... You have a training "methodology" but you only use that when you coach people face to face and you can't explain what it is and it is your own individual training and not to be shared with public? And you are all by yourself and Lydiardites are a whole bunch of people who believe Lydiard approach is the right approach and that's why you are correct and Lydiard is wrong? And all the Lydiard training schedules, acording to you, are all the same and that's why it's no good and when those Lydiardites publish this "unified schedule", then we can "go deeper with your training? I really couldn't get that last part.... And when the kid said he had been very curious and interested and trying to read all your posts and came up with his own training schedule, however silly it may have looked, based in his eyes on your recommendations, then you tell him that if he's not interested, don't read your posts?

Are you actually Richard Gibbens? Back in CoolRunning days, he always said FIRST program was his idea, go check out FIRST (like you always say 'Go check out Canova') and never gives ANY specific idea of his own and whenever asked about specifics, he disappeared. And he didn't like Lydiard and he didn't like Nobby. You must be Richard impersonating some European guy who can't speack (or write) English....

just an observer wrote:

Noticed something interesting? The kid asked a long serious and SPECIFIC question: Khadaffi can't answer it, won't answer it, and he disappears...

Cmon man, wxc is next door, he's busy ok.

Richard Gibbens! Wow, you win the Memory Prize. Great post. I'll laugh myself to sleep tonight.

I've been away 2 days and I had to search for the thread. Have we hit a raw nerve ???

At the present Li is one coach of the modern training, Lydiard is one of the old training.[/quote]

And who has Dr Li coached to the top other than 1 guy who got caught using EPO?

Depends on what "got caught" means.

Maybe you are referring to the false positive sample that was cooked before tested, and unconfirmed by the same test on the "B" sample?

Bernard Lagat wins because of Bernard Lagat, not Li's methodology, and even less so, EPO. His consistency and longevity only confirm that.

HRE wrote:

Richard Gibbens! Wow, you win the Memory Prize. Great post. I'll laugh myself to sleep tonight.

Maybe he is out doing research to actually construct his bell curve, which at this point still doesn't exist.