LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

It's all Skuj's fault.

Oh, Skuj is wellnow too. Tinman said it was so, because "some people" told him.

CraigMac4h wrote:

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.

Let´s see what the Lydiard training, the one that is supposed to improve the strength endurance and resistance by the “perfect” or the “good” combination aerobic condition and anaerobic training by the use mileage volume, long runs even for a middle distance runner.

Let´s see what Lydiard method brings in terms of resistence that the other training methodds don’t.

I include some of the best top runners among olympic and world champs and world leaders. Primary I get

Just a small number but you can do the same among the top 100 world ranking that are there in both 800m and 1500m. You will get the conclusion that the 800m/1500m average ratio for top 100 in both specialities is best than what Peter Snell did himself

in the 2 distance events that Peter Snell did gold.

In the case of Peter Snell and Wolhuter I did use the mile convert to 1500m to benefit them because their 1500m PB is weaker. But even with so, Peter doesn´t seem to have no special talent of resistance while double the distance relate to all the rest.

Runners who tend to be best in 800m that´s natural that his 800m/1500m ratio is poor than runners have the 1500m event as his best from both 800m and 1500m.

You may do the same exercise for double 400m-800m and you will get the same conclusion. Peter Snell John Walker Steve Scott haven´t gain nothing special that every other training method can´t bring. Of course they were winners and Olympics, So the many others from other training methods.

You may try to same exercice ratio with John Davies or every runner that you consider from the Lydiard method

(800mPB) (1500mPB) RATIO (800m/1500m)

Peter Snell 1:44.3 (3:54.30mile) 0.480866759

convert 1500m=mile/1.08 3:36.9

Filbert Bayi 1:45:32 3:32.2 0.496324222

John Walker 1:44.95 3:32.4 0.494114878

Steve Scott 1:45.05 3:32.6 0.494120414

Fermin Cacho 1:45:37 3:28.95 0.504283321

Rashid Ramzi 1:44.05 3:29.14 0.497513627

Alan Webb 1:43.84 3:30.5 0.493301663

Seb Coe 1:41.73 3:32.03 0.479790596

Steve Cram 1:42.88 3:29.67 0.490675824

Steve Ovett 1:44.09 3:30.77 0.493855862

Morcelli --- 3:27:37

El Guerrouj --- 3:26.00

Peter Elliott 1:42.97 3:32.69 0.484131835

W. Kipketer 1:41.11 ---

Mehdi Baala 1:43.15 3:28.98 0.493587903

R. Wohlhuter 1:43.5 (3:53.3mile) 0.479144484

convert 1500m=mile/1.08 3:36.01

Said Aouita 1:44.36 3:29:46 0.498233553

Bernard Lagat --- 3:26.34

Borzakovskiy 1:42:47 3:40.3 0.465138448

I have a study in front of me that considers all the runners that are includes in the world rankings that are the 500m all time best in both 800m and 1500m events. I can´t post it because that´s too long and I have more to do. But the conclusion is this one. People tend to have quite similar ratios. Some exceptions are due to the fact records aren´t everyday performances and someday somehow the runner does an outstand result. Therefore among those runners there are some that have a best performance in 800m than in 1500m and vice versa. When that´s the case runners that have done best in 800m the ratio tend to be lower, when the best event that´s 1500m the ratio tend to be higher. But the final conclusion is that the ratios have such a small amplitude that no one can claim to be a best performer.

Except wellnow and some other folks you may understand that the 1500m event have a high aerobic need than the 800m that´s more anaerobic. So the so proclaim Lydiard training good aerobic condition and the use of mileage and long runs will result in very good 800m-1500m ratio. But it doesn´t.

We see runners from all training methods with good ratios.

From what I discuss since some time here. THER´S NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE LYDIARD RUNNERS AND THE LYDIARD METHOD PRODUCES BEST RESULTS THAN EVERY OTHER ONE.

Of course that Lydiard training did produce Olympics and WRs, but the others training methods did either. The fact that you are a top runners and you perform at the top level it comes from your genes and then you need the adequate training. But the fact that you have a strong 800m-1500m ratio comes from your aerobic power. In that issue te Lydiard training – despite the propaganda seems to be as good as every other training method. The efficiency of 100miles, long runs for middle distance events, the hills, the blocks, the anaerobic block or the way you lace your shoes have no evidence to be best relate to the others.

Once again I post the ratio result, may be some of you don´t understand.

**************(800mPB)***1500mPB)*********RATIO(800m/1500m)

Peter Snell****1:44.3****(3:54.30mile)****0.480866759

convert 1500m=mile/1.08=3:36.9

**************(800mPB)***1500mPB)*********RATIO(800m/1500m)

Filbert Bayi***1:45:32****3:32.2**********0.496324222

John Walker****1:44.95****3:32.4**********0.494114878

Steve Scott****1:45.05****3:32.6**********0.494120414

Fermin Cacho***1:45:37****3:28.95*********0.504283321

Rashid Ramzi***1:44.05****3:29.14*********0.497513627

Alan Webb******1:43.84****3:30.5**********0.493301663

Seb Coe********1:41.73****3:32.03*********0.479790596

Steve Cram*****1:42.88****3:29.67*********0.490675824

Steve Ovett****1:44.09****3:30.77*********0.493855862

Morcelli*******-------****3:27:37*********-----------

El Guerrouj****-------****3:26.00*********-----------

Peter Elliott**1:42.97****3:32.69*********0.484131835

W.Kipketer*****1:41.11****-------*********-----------

Mehdi Baala****1:43.15****3:28.98*********0.493587903

R.Wohlhuter****1:43.5*****(3:53.3mile)****0.479144484

convert 1500m=mile/1.08=3:36.01

Said Aouita****1:44.36****3:29:46*********0.498233553

Bernard Lagat**-------****3:26.34*********-----------

Carole King wrote:

It's all Skuj's fault.

Oh, Skuj is wellnow too. Tinman said it was so, because "some people" told him.

While there is ample evidence that Skuj is still trolling here using under a variety of handles, methinks he is not IQ100. There are two reasons for this. One, Skuj is not clever enough to feign broken English as well as this guy. Second, IQ100 has put forth some obviously well thought out training ideas, though not everyone agrees with them. Skuj, on the other hand, has never been accused of having more than a modicum of advanced training knowledge. Skuj continues to post, but not as IQ100.

My before posts have made certain the troll Skujee is not me. I am in Italy but he is only in Canada. We cannot be the same person. You are right probably that he has less ideas of training than mine. I do not know. But he is troll and I am not. There is no fear of using a different name for me like there is for him. Too bad for that is the way of the coward I think. My hopes are that he does not make bad this thread like the others he used.

lQ100 wrote:

My before posts have made certain the troll Skujee is not me. I am in Italy but he is only in Canada. We cannot be the same person. You are right probably that he has less ideas of training than mine. I do not know. But he is troll and I am not. There is no fear of using a different name for me like there is for him. Too bad for that is the way of the coward I think. My hopes are that he does not make bad this thread like the others he used.

Oooooohhhh...."observer of things", I give you 8/10 for that one. That's skillfull!

If a highschool coach was intersted in coaching with the Lydiard method, how would he design a program with Lydiard's principles when he has to coach 3 seasons?

lQ100 wrote:

My before posts have made certain the troll Skujee is not me. I am in Italy but he is only in Canada. We cannot be the same person. You are right probably that he has less ideas of training than mine. I do not know. But he is troll and I am not. There is no fear of using a different name for me like there is for him. Too bad for that is the way of the coward I think. My hopes are that he does not make bad this thread like the others he used.

Runnning Dogg wrote:

Oooooohhhh...."observer of things", I give you 8/10 for that one. That's skillfull!

Thanks for helping me make my point, Skuj.

The "point" is that you imitated IQ, and you just admitted to it!

IQ, register both handles. (Capital i and small L.) There is a skillful troll among us.

Runnning Dogg wrote:

The "point" is that you imitated IQ, and you just admitted to it!

IQ, register both handles. (Capital i and small L.) There is a skillful troll among us.

Really? How exactly did I just "admit" it? If you say by not denying it, then that means you "admit" to being Skuj. Nice job, troll. You stepped in it big time.

As for the multiple IQ100 handles, how would you have found out about that unless you are one of them? You just stepped in it with the other foot. Perhaps I was wrong about IQ100 not being Skuj.

My apologies to those who I doubted when they said IQ100 was Skuj. The evidence is now overwhelming that those people knew exactly what they were talking about.

As a newcomer to these boards I must admit you have me at a loss. Who are you people? Who have you coached? You can post 100,000 times and all and everything you say is meaningless without credibility!

As a newcomer to these boards I must admit you have me at a loss. Who are you people? Who have you coached? You can post 100,000 times and all and everything you say is meaningless without credibility!

Richard Hensworth wrote:

As a newcomer to these boards I must admit you have me at a loss. Who are you people? Who have you coached? You can post 100,000 times and all and everything you say is meaningless without credibility!

Using your logic, we must interpret your post as being meaningless. Welcome aboard, Richard.

Aha! but, I'm not here trying to convince anyone, just stating the obvious. This bickering could end if you showed the best results.

How you get there isn't important, It's that you get there!

Richard Hensworth wrote:

Aha! but, I'm not here trying to convince anyone...

That's good because I remain unconvinced that you are credible.

What you have to understand is that Skuj is being attacked from all angles - the well known people who should know better, and his infamous, relentless troll, who is "observer of things" this hour.

Letsfun wrote:

What you have to understand is that Skuj is being attacked from all angles - the well known people who should know better, and his infamous, relentless troll, who is "observer of things" this hour.

You've got to admit that Skuj certainly gives as good as he gets.

Observer of things wrote:

As for the multiple IQ100 handles, how would you have found out about that unless you are one of them? You just stepped in it with the other foot. Perhaps I was wrong about IQ100 not being Skuj.

My apologies to those who I doubted when they said IQ100 was Skuj. The evidence is now overwhelming that those people knew exactly what they were talking about.

You aren't very intelligent, are you? It is obvious when you pretend to be IQ. Your anti-Skuj tirade is familiar to many regular letsrunners. You are so easy to spot. I'm just saying.

Thing is, I don't think the Lydiard way is the best for everyone (or that any one way is the best for everyone).

But it's still a viable way. It's still relevant and meaningful.

It's one thing to sit and discuss about the merits of Lydiard compared to other methods. I like doing that. What I think is unfair (and why I've jumped in to defend these guys) is that IQ100 was, at first, being very personal- calling Lydiardism a "cult" and being disrespectful to people who disagreed with him.

However, IQ100 has shifted from attacking Lydiardists to describing his own views on training. That's fine, and IQ100, I commend you for changing your tune. I agree with you on some of your points, even.

The way I see training is that everyone will thrive off somewhat different stuff.

I think if Peter Snell had trained like Bill Crothers (a contemporary of Snell who was a low-mileage, interval intensive athlete with similar 800 results) he would have been a 1:48 bum no one had ever heard of.

Likewise, if Crothers had run 100 miles a week and not done speed for months, like Snell did, he would have been a 1:48 bum no one had ever heard of.

Now, a lot of Americans, I think, lack endurance. A good way to go about getting more endurance is the long, steady efforts Lydiard recommended. Obviously, if a guy can run 2:00 in the 800 but only 58 in the 400, his problem isn't endurance, but speed.

Any program- Coe or Daniels or Lydiard or Igloi- should be focused on the individual needs of each athlete. If you have great speed but lack endurance, work on your endurance. If you have great endurance but no speed, work on speed. If you have great footspeed, good endurance, but can't put it together during a race, focus on improving that.

I would think that it's very rare nowadays to see a professional runner say "oh, I follow the Lydiard program" or "Yup, I'm a die-hard Coe follower."

More likely, you'll see a coach who took bits and pieces from everyone and then modified the way he did things as his experiences taught him. So maybe, like John Walker, you'll see a Lydiard-type program that was modified to account for Walker's Compartment Syndrome, or Liquori, who did Lydiard-type stuff but threw out the downhill running.

Or, on the other side of the coin, you have an athlete like Tim Hutchins, (4th at the OG 5000, 1984) who was coached by Frank Horwill, a noted low-mileage, 5-pace-theory guy. Hutchins has been quoted as saying "well, I did Frank's workouts, but I did way more mileage than he recommends- you won't get world-class running 40 miles and doing 5 workouts a week." Instead of doing 5 workouts in 5 days, Tim would add a day of easy miles in between, doing Frank's 5 paces in 10 days.

Any "program" is worthless unless it can be modified to suit the needs unique to each athlete. Two guys can run 1:44 off completely opposite training- it means little about the relative merits of each training program, and more that "Well, for 1:44 Guy 1, Lydiard worked. For 1:44 Guy 2, interval intensive stuff worked."

Any coach worth his salt will realize what works best for EACH ATHLETE (even athletes in the same event running similar times) and give those athletes the best workouts for THEM.