LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

CraigMac4h wrote:

The reason Snell could do all that hard anaerobic work was BECAUSE of all those long runs he did during buildup.

Is that so ? So why faster runners that Peter - 400m runner - speed type - like for example past cuban Alberto Juantoena or italian Marcello Fiasconaro or recent Borzakowsky did best than Pete Snell IF THE TRAIN THEY DID WAS LIKE A QUARTER SPECIALIST (WITH NO LONG RUNS OF COURSE) ?

And why runners with slow 400m and 800m PBs than Peter Snell and WITHOUT LONG RUNS IN THIEIR SCHEDULES and WITH LESS ANAEROBIC TRAINING CHARGE than Pete they were able to run fast 1500m PBs than Pete did ?

If the long run it promotes the stamina to permit to hold on the anerobic workouts why RUNNERS WITH MORE LACK OF SPEED than Peter Snell (they have slow 800m Pbs than Pete Snell)WHY THEY ARE BEST 1500m/MILE PERFORMERS than Peter Snell he was ? Runners like Steve Cramm, Pete Elliot, Filbert Bayi, Morcelli, Aouita, or recent french Mehdi Baala SLOWER THAN Peter and WITHOUT LONG RUNS and LESS ANAEROBIC TRAINING IN THEIR SCHEDULES what makes them so good relate to Peter without the long run ?

You need to search for another argument.

I know for a fact that Cram, Aouita, and Peter Elliot have faster PR's than Snell's 1:44.3.

Your argument makes no sense.

Long runs give you strength and durability, hard speed stuff gives you speed and the stamina to sustain it. It's a simple concept.

You're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

HRE wrote:

Nothing you say is relevant to the discussion of Lydiard/Daniels.

But of course Lydiard's place is well established and you're just another example of what arthur used to call the "Tall Poppy" syndrome, i.e. people who haven't accomplished anything and make themselves feel better about it by trashing people who have accomplished something.

On the other hand some posts of this same thread it goes a discuss about Hamlet question "to be or not to be" that´s to say "aerobic or anaerobic" or "acid lactic good or bad".

As i never read nothing negative about it from your posts you may agree and Lydiardism too that this Tinman wellnow physiologic interesting discuss it have an huge and a positive contribute to the Lydiard/Daniels discuss. As i see you don´t disagree with Tinman or wellnow but you also you don´t take your personal position or comment on such an important issue for the future of the Lydiardism and for the future of the training distance if not the future of the mankind. I hope you don´t consider each one Tinman or wellnow "Tall Poppy".

This 2 guys they did a major accomplishment in the run sport. In my skuj alter ego I just wait for their superior and specific conclusion about the aerobic anaerobic issue and i hope that they will have time to discuss how the way to lace the shoes it contributes to the perfect combination of the aerobic and anaerobic training.

It's sometimes enjoyable to read here and other times sort of frustrating. Of course there is no perfect training method that applies to all runners; if so then no need at all for coaches -- just read the proper way to do it and all do exactly the same training day after day. A coach helps each runner do his/her best by providing the proper training environment for each, the envoronment that allows each runner's ability to be released. I am sure that some runners have become champions without even doing what may have made them even better. If you win or if you set records then it is assumed that what you did is the proper way to train. Hard to prove that, if you didn't also give equal attention to another method. We all have strengths and weaknesses. If you type 150 words a minute but misspell them all, you need to work on accuracy, your weakness; another may spell all words correctly, but can type no more than 30 words a minute. These two individuals have to train a bit differently. Certainly there are some basic training principles, for example, if you have never run and you start by jogging 20 miles a week, you will become a better runner. Increase the training load and become even better. At some point increasing the intensity will probably produce better improvement than just going to more and more mileage. Now we start to get into a little different situation -- doing something other than just increasing the amount or the speed of running, and this is where the individual differences really start to show up. And never overlook the psychological sideof it all -- how is the reward you feel from various types of workouts; same performance may be acepted very differently by two different runners. Enough for now.

I really have almost no idea what you're saying, but you might be asking what I think about the discussion of the way words like aerobic and anaerobic are used?

If so, I don't have an opinion. There's running that makes you breath hard, running that allows you to breath easily and varying kinds of running in between. Obviously you want to be able to run as fast as possible while breathing as easily as possible and you want to train to make that happen.

I don't see how the terminology matters. If you're asking something else I'm sorry I answered something else.

Why were they faster milers than Snell? Synthetic tracks vs. grass, professional pacemakers vs. local guys willing to help out, not having to fit training and racing around a full time job. Snell's times probably are as good or better than many subsequent record holders when you factor in the differences in their situations.

And there is the matter of drugs. I find it hard to think that Aouita, for example, who was accused by several Australians that he coached of trying to get them to take PEDs wasn't taking them himself.

You also are missing the point of the long run which is to improve a runner's aerobic fitness. An athlete who has inherited a highly developed cardoivascular system or developed one by some means other than running may be able to run well at shorter distances without doing long runs. But most western athletes aren't likely to be in that situation especially in this day and age. I really don't think it's a coincidence that it was nearly twenty years before an American miler could break Steve Scott's national record and that no Kiwi 800 runner has yet managed to break Snell's national record and both of them are advocates of long runs.

HRE,Westcoast,Craigmac

It is too easy to use the success accomplished by Lydiard's Olympic Medallists to justify the need of the long runs.

It is up to you guys to tell us which world class middle distance runners you have COACHED, who have used long runs as a regular, consistent part of their training.

I know for a fact that some posters here speak from THEIR OWN COACHING EXPERIENCE. HRE, Westcoast, Craigmac DO NOT.

Carry on.

I'm speaking from my experiences of being coached- once my coaches got me to start doing regular long runs in conditioning periods I noticed I felt strong, faster, more durable, etc.

I think long runs just make sense. To some people, it seems counter-intuitive to do 90 minute runs for an event only 4 minutes or so long.

But I think they make sense, from my own experiences with them and my own observations of others' experiences.

Whether or not 2x1hr is better than 1x2hr is certainly a valid debate. I come down on the favor of 2hr runs for an athlete's longer. I've stated why I think so- and I don't have a problem with anyone who might disagree- so long as their own arguments are clear, well-presented, and delivered in the same non-confrontational tone mine are.

oh cinder tracks...like Roger Moens that old runner what he had done with best tracks, with an high competitive contenders...without world war...surely Roger would have done best than Peter Snell.

You may go back in history and you may relate all to the excuse of the worst conditions of the past. Simply you are in the area of hypothesis not the concrete reality.

In NZ or USA you haven´t runners traning right in the Lydiard method the perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic training doing all that stuff ? If so why the Lydiard method isn´t able to produce another Peter Snell so many decades further up or another Steve so many years after ? Does Lydiard training doesn´t result dne by in recent athletes with all that professionalism ? I would expect that it does, but you say it doesn´t. Doesn´t the Lydiard training so popular in USA and in NZ isn´able to recruit a runner good enough to do best than Peter Snell ? But both Peter Snell and Steve Scott performances were broke by many other athletes from other countries - BUT MOS OF THEM DIDN´T USE Lydiard training. Is that possible ? Why that ?

If so what´s the meaning of a Jack Daniels when he writes a book about training ? Is that training book for the running history and simply to let us know who is Jack and how are Jack´s training principles, or is that book for coaches or for runners ? What is that training book for if he need a coach ?

That´s something that the Lydiard method ignores. Lydiard training is quite immutable.

Why would that be up to me. I have coached people. I have coached teams. None of them world class, but yes, I do speak from my own coaching experience among other things. What world class runners have you coached?

Beautiful. I "get" your ironicalness, IQ.

If only people who coached successfully could offer training advice, this board would instantly dry up and disappear into a meaningless void.In my opinion, this recurring idea of only those who coach champions can possibly offer useful insight ranks just under personal attacks for lameness and uselessness.I find it best to think of this board as full of anonymous posters, and then try to search for the meaning in the posts, rather than attach meaning by who posted it. Unfortunately for some, this forces them to exercise there brain.We are all students on a journey of discovery, and there is plenty to talk about.Regards,

okaythenIwant to see wrote:

HRE,Westcoast,Craigmac

It is too easy to use the success accomplished by Lydiard's Olympic Medallists to justify the need of the long runs.

It is up to you guys to tell us which world class middle distance runners you have COACHED, who have used long runs as a regular, consistent part of their training.

I know for a fact that some posters here speak from THEIR OWN COACHING EXPERIENCE. HRE, Westcoast, Craigmac DO NOT.

Carry on.

I think he was calling you a "self-appointed moderator" of the thread. Why do you allow Tinman and wellnow to continue their "off-topic" argument that has little to do with "Lydiard or Daniels"?

HRE wrote:

I really have almost no idea what you're saying, but you might be asking what I think about the discussion of the way words like aerobic and anaerobic are used?

If so, I don't have an opinion. There's running that makes you breath hard, running that allows you to breath easily and varying kinds of running in between. Obviously you want to be able to run as fast as possible while breathing as easily as possible and you want to train to make that happen.

I don't see how the terminology matters. If you're asking something else I'm sorry I answered something else.

Did you read Daniel's book? Do you know the Lydiard method? If you have the same understanding I do, you wouldn't post these questions.Daniels Running Formula is quite broad, giving the coach/athlete detailed guidelines (backed up by experience and research) about training over all distances, and also common aspects, like how to come back from injury, without overdoing it. Daniels provides a framework, with lots of guidelines and tables. There are still plenty of decision points for the coach or the self-coached athlete to factor in what the athlete needs to work on. Some have accused Lydiard of being an economist, perhaps favoring injury avoidance, so the book is likely targeted at amateur coaches or self-coached athletes, rather than elite champions.And the Lydiard method is far from immutable, and one of its main strengths is allowing the athlete to work on weaknesses in the final preparation before the race. One underlying principle is to take the level of the athlete into account. Therefore 100mpw for top athletes, and 70mpw for students are allowed in the method. A lot of people (including you) criticize the repetitions for not being carved in stone. The coordination phase of Lydiard allows you to identify any weaknesses, and then you tailor your training to strengthen that weakness.

IQ100 wrote:

If so what´s the meaning of a Jack Daniels when he writes a book about training ? Is that training book for the running history and simply to let us know who is Jack and how are Jack´s training principles, or is that book for coaches or for runners ? What is that training book for if he need a coach ?

...

That´s something that the Lydiard method ignores. Lydiard training is quite immutable.

Speaking of specificity, can we stick to rebutting the specific points made? I said "specificity interest approach to conditioning", and you countered with "specific interest" of his last 10 weeks prior to the Olympics. Your diatribes would be a lot shorter.

I would combine the responses of CraigMac4 and Wetcoast -- that Snell could do so many specific workouts, because he had already established a good aerobic base to work from. That's the Lydiard package.

The long runs were an important part of building that base, but I won't claim that it is the only way to build up sufficient aerobic base, and I won't claim that the long run equals good aerobic base.

All these examples of other runners who did something else only prove that different runners with different talent using different methods and different coaches can also achieve success.

There are way too many variables to pick out one single aspect out of context, and conclude that all paths to success must pass through that gate.

I still think you mistake die-hard enthusiasm for dogma or a cult or a declaration of exclusivity. Enthusiastic fans often speak in superlatives, to express the magnitude of their enthusiasm and confidence of their belief. Maybe this never happens in Italy. Most people are not offended by logic and reasoned debate, but you fell just short of calling people liars, over the use of obvious and off-point "marketing" phrases, like the "Father of Jogging", and "perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic". Even non-Lydiardists would call this "trolling" and "offensive".

Ooops, I meant to say Daniels, not Lydiard...

The Light wrote:

... Some have accused Lydiard of being an economist,

But can we really call today's science knowledge? Wouldn't that just repeat the fallacy? Isn't today's knowledge just tomorrow's doubt? The confidence boost I gain now, may be shattered by the detrimental conflict with today's science and tomorrow's science.I just wonder how coaches can ever succeed building their runner's confidence, when the scientists are 25 years behind. By the time science catches up, the runner's careers are finished.

wellnow wrote:

I think that the clash between the old science and the new science is detrimental to a runner's confidence.

Does science matter in Lydiardism? Yes, very much because a lot ot runners are worried that others are using science to gain an advantage or an unfair advantage.

So your confidence can be boosted or shaken by knowledge or doubt, just as it always has been.

HRE and The light -

don't use Lydiard's Olympians to justify your arguments for the long run. Use your own athletes. real improvements, that's what I would like to see.