Lydiard Imitations

Renato,

With 2'55 km being building up effect, and slow running being regeneration; what is the weekly percentage of building up effect for most of the training, vs regeneration?

For example in a week, the runner does 250km (155miles) in a week, but you don't do building up effect every day, only every 5 days or so yes? So all the rest of the running is regeneration. If the athlete does 45km one day at building up effect (marathon pace), then 6 days easy, that is only 45km out of 250km, about 20 to 25 percent of the kilometers, is this right?

Therefore:

building up effect -> 25% of the distance

and regeneration -> 70 to 75% of the distance

Or else 80 or 90% building up and only a little regeneration seems like not enough regeneration.

DerC wrote:

What is an "aerobic" pace? 1500m race pace should be between 70 and 85 % Aerobic ... so this got to be an aerobic pace, right?

Or do you have to run slower than some magical threshold pace to run at an "aerobic" pace? How much slower, as running at the so called threshold should be around 98% aerobic?

C

So what is going on with this lactate curve that is repeatedly measurable? Sure lactate isn't now seen as a poison but it characteristics are still valid. It may not cause the specific fatigue that occurs when activity pushes above this range. So whatever is causing this fatigue is still within this range isn't it?

Many people have that opinion. But I've watched training emthods for about forty years now and I don't see anything anyone is doing now that's new. The terminology and physiological descriptions are new and there's been tweaking and adaption to circumstance but when you're talking about an activity which is nothing more than putting one foot in front of the other there's only so many ways to do it.

If you think Lydiard is outdated and would be wasting your time learning what he did, then don't. But the success so many people have had in using and adapting his approach is going to insure that there will be interest in his methods.

I'd bet that in another thrity years people will still be looking at what Lydiard did but will have largely forgotten about today's prominent coaches.

Of course everyone is still running, so you can say there is nothing new.

But to be serious, it is simply ridiculous to state that there is nothing new in training. Everyone dont train Lydiard training. Cabrals method is not Lydiard training, even if they sometimes do similar workouts.

Training is not only the workouts, but the whole structure.

When Renato give his program structure, there are new ideas and elements. For example a high emphasis on the supercompensation principle, stressing all the systems he thinks contribute to performance. Alactic hill sprints for neuromuscular adaption. Very fast long runs, with lots of recovery. Special blocks, etc etc.

Cant we rather than stupidly discuss wheter there has been something new since Lydiard, move on to discussing what training is the best, and why.

Noone have found a optimal individual plan yet, not Lydiard, not Renato, not anyone else.

I have experience with the Lydiard system, and strongly believe in a build up with emphasis on slower paces. But i am also interested in learning.

Different things are emphasized. Pieces are arranged in different orders. But I don't see anyone today doing anything I didn't do at least for a little while along the way.

HRE wrote:

Different things are emphasized. Pieces are arranged in different orders. But I don't see anyone today doing anything I didn't do at least for a little while along the way.

No you don´t !

1/By the way, when you did train on the Lydiard method, did you 2-3 specific runs on the aerobic block, the way you broke the aerrobic rule of the introductory/aerobic block ? Did you ?

2/ By the way, when you did train on the Lydiard method, did you miss the regular long run while you rujn for distances shorter than the marathon ?

Two of the three chances. Or you are a lie (and i know that you don´t), or if you did item 2 and 3 you did broke the Lydiard training, and consequently what you did it wasn´t Lydiard training on the period that you did that.

Finnaly let me remember you - you know now, but don´t forget - that both item 1 and item 2 is part of modern training methodology, but out of Lydiard training

Modern training that you didn´t try during the Lydiard training or you are a Lydiard revisionist.

item 1/ modern training out of Lydiard- the specific training out of aerobics during the intrductory phase/block

item 2/ - useless of regular weekly long runs if not for long distances events as the marathon.

Greetings to HRE from Portugal to US.

Training is not to try a workout here and there.

It is to build pieces together over a long time in order to achieve the best possible performance in a given timeframe.

No human can test more than a few systems on themselves.

Doing anaerobic workouts in month 1 of preparation or wait until month 5. It makes a difference in the end result.

Positive or negative we can discuss, BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME SYSTEM.

Thats what the discussion is all about. HOW CAN WE ARRANGE TRAINING IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN THE END.

Antonio, each time i wonder whether to reply to you or not. I read your words once, twice and your misinformation and bias towards Lydiard is so strong i just have to counter it. So to tackle your historical misinterpretations i go.

GERSCHLER

Gerschler didn't have the luxury of the science of periodisation to work with. This didn't first appear until 1965 in written form. Sure the ideas were out by then, in the 30s when Gerschler was doing his thing. My coach has told me how Matveyev lectured around the sports universities and institutes on his theory. he speaks of when MAtveyev lectured at his own university and how he attended that lecture, so early 60s it was possible it was out in the public domain. But the point is that Gerschler and periodisation do not go together by some 25 years Antonio. There were no phases and no cycles, just same, same all the time, all year round.

Gerschler first worked with an 800m runner. It is by this runner the fame first spread. Rudolf Harbig is his name. It is quite a famous and fundamental story in the history of middle distance running. So what are you referring to when you say Moens was Gerschlers first athlete?

To conclude on your Gerschler story, if you want to use it as evidence in support of your own particular complex theory then go right ahead. Unfortunately for you, his overall approach is well outdated by now. This isn't to say the interval idea isn't still well used of course, just it isn't an entire system anymore. Even by the 60s this was the case, and we are now in 2011. So if you iwsh to use a system that had no periodisation as evidence to support your own go right ahead. It's worth about as much as those scientific studies you threw at me earlier in this thread.

MATVEYEV

It's not really appropriate to say GERMAN-SOVIET system. Well maybe on the surface you can say this but if you dig just a little the differences are large. The Germans always remained led by interval training so even when periodisation flooded in, the emphasis on intervals remained. The Soviet system didn't overemphasise intervals like this.

I know a bit about training for the technical events under a Soviet system and you are misordering things. Biomechanical training didn't start after strength development, it occurred side by side. When biomotor fundamentals are being developed so are psychomotor fundamentals - so drills structures are initiated focusing on elements of each technical skill adn this is trained side side with aerobic capacity and strength capacity. Remember this is general training so an all round athleticism is developed. This isn't something practised much in the MD and LD worlds because it appears to be a smaller factor, so i don't expect you to be too knowledgeable about it, although with the Moens mistake you have no excuse.

Also you are trying to say that periodisation was initially only for technical events and later adapted to running. This isn't true. It was applied across the board, nont selectively and obviously worked for Borzov as you say. Why

it didn't work for MD is up for debate. I've put forward my reasoning already. Lack of long running might have been a problem in my opinion. But interestingly, similarly to what i pointed out with Sedykh and Alexeyev, we can find in Victor Saneyev's preparation training. You know the athlete of the decade in the 70s, three consecutive Olympic gold medals. IN Winter he used to walk in the snow in big snowshoes for up to two hours as part of his training. So once again we see the wisdom of the greats coming through with a similar approach taken to deep training.

LYDIARD

Depsite your blatant copying and then misuse of what i said in a previous post to Renato regarding all of this Soviet and German stuff, you also try and invent a new Lydiard history. You really are too much.

So now Lydiard got a hold of Matveyev on the phone in say 1959 and said 'hey i saw on the internet you have a new training system, mind if i use it to make my own better'. Seriously? Rome was in 1960. Matveyev publisised his work in 1965. The Germans didn't periodise before Matveyev released his theory. So how exactly did Lydiard take some ideas from the Soviet's? Did he have a time machine? I was only postulating how he could have come across Matveyev, not suggesting he did. Sorry to say but Lydiard and Matveyev, through totally different means, developed the same underlying periodisation. Furthermore, Lydiard seems to have the same principles that Matveyev discovered, these biological legalities that your system seems free to disregard.

Perhaps when you google some history next you should look a little deeper. I'm sure Harbig wasn't far away.

We've been down this road so many times here. I'm not going to do it again. What I've leanred from you is:

1) You do not undertsand what Lydiard did very well.

2) You think you do.

3) When someone who has spent time learning what Lydiard did do and how the method is applied in various situations points out what you don't know to you, your response is to talk about how those people don't think for themselves, are blindly loyal to Lydiard and so on.

It makes for endless, repetitive, and probably pointless discussions and I don't enjoy that sort of thing.

A phrase like "pieces are arranged differently" seems beyond your understanding. I really enjoyed some of those e-mails we exchanged and loved the things you've put on some other threads here, most particularly the ones about van Aaken and Harald Norpoth. I hope we have opportunities to discuss some other topics in the future, preferrably ones we don't look at so differently.

All the best to you.

Well, "SmithStn" wrote a direct quote from a book, without interpretation.Lydiard published detailed effort tables describing the paces for the different efforts in his first book in 1962. It's been public knowledge for 50 years.There is very little mystery surrounding the appropriate paces.

DerC wrote:

You just documented another evidence of how problematic Lydiards efforts are. Or maybe you did not interpret that efforts right.

C

Didn't I already answer this for you?In Lydiard contexts, "anaerobic" means lower arterial blood pH.

DerC wrote:

What is an "aerobic" pace? 1500m race pace should be between 70 and 85 % Aerobic ... so this got to be an aerobic pace, right?

Or do you have to run slower than some magical threshold pace to run at an "aerobic" pace? How much slower, as running at the so called threshold should be around 98% aerobic?

And what about Lydiards 200m stridings? Are they not "anaerobic"?

And how many miles per week will your 3h marathoner run at 7'/mile and faster? 80? 90? The most 3h marathoners won't last more than 2 or 3 weeks this way ...

C

gypsy wrote:

Gerschler didn't invent the interval concept.

And THEN we get to Gerschler, who studied both of these guys and decided not enough speed was present. So he invented intervals and made a great 800m runner. But intervals were his only training stimulus and so came the next step thanks to the Soviets and most specifically Leonid Matveyev, founder of Soviet Periodisation.

First of all thank you for liking my post.

You must not know much about Gershler, to say intervals were his only training stimulus. Perhaps you don't know that Rudolph Harbig ran up to 45 minutes in training, also 1500 and 1000 meter runs. His event training was not intervals, but metabolism training with long rests, for example 20 minutes jogging, 600m in 1:27, 10 minutes jogging, 300m in 36.9, 10 minutes jogging, 500m in 66.7, and two days later 800m in 1:46.6 world record on a horrible track. Several weeks later he ran a session with 20 minutes jogging, 3x 250m in 30.6, 30.2, 29.8 jogging 10 minutes after each, then four days later 400m in 46.0 another world record. None of this was interval training.

Gershler did much to develop interval training but it was not the only training he used.

J.R. wrote:

First of all thank you for liking my post.

You must not know much about Gershler, to say intervals were his only training stimulus. Perhaps you don't know that Rudolph Harbig ran up to 45 minutes in training, also 1500 and 1000 meter runs. His event training was not intervals, but metabolism training with long rests, for example 20 minutes jogging, 600m in 1:27, 10 minutes jogging, 300m in 36.9, 10 minutes jogging, 500m in 66.7, and two days later 800m in 1:46.6 world record on a horrible track. Several weeks later he ran a session with 20 minutes jogging, 3x 250m in 30.6, 30.2, 29.8 jogging 10 minutes after each, then four days later 400m in 46.0 another world record. None of this was interval training.

Thats really awesome thanks and no i don't know Gerschler like you do that's for sure. I'm not so much of a scholar, i like to scan and grab so to speak.

When you say 45 mins in training was this continuous steady state or is this the length of time the intervals took? And i thought he ran the long reps, possibly up to 2000m, in sets even if it was just two. Interesting about those fartek like sessions he used for race prep. It would be the other way around now in the training process. What other sessions do you know of that they did?

I ask your about your training and your comment that you did try almost everything. Your answer is about what you think that i know and that i don´t.

Conclusion. You didn´t answer my question at all.

The fact is that "Pieces are arranged differently" it´s not training methodology.

That doesn´t define nothing at all about training methodology. Every training method that did exist, exists in the present and might exist in the fututre might be defined by that "pieces are arranged differently". Still depends how each one arrangement.

Relate to training method that sentence is demagogy, an innacurate statement that suports every kind of training.

One more question, instead of comment on me. What´s the training method that you know that "doesn´t arrange pieces differently" ? They all do.

GERSHELER AND INTERVAL TRAINING

Excuse me. I taugh about Rodolf Harbig but I write Roger Moens. You are right, I took one for the other.

However the “new” interval training method started to emerge in Germany just before the Second World War with 2 distinct phases: one before the 2nd world war and the second post-world war and that finnaly results in one training method that is formulate on the 60s.

You are right that it´s formulate only on 60s but after a long research period in Freiburg, and in cooperation with Reindell during which thousand of athletes from several countries were monitored, the basic ‘toolkit’ of ‘interval-training’ was then established later in the 60s but the training method was used and prescribed way way back to 2 decades before, since the 40s

It´s developed by Waldemar Gerschler, it was based on both the Finnish approach and ‘fartlek’ (i.e. emphasis on ‘quality training’, and alternation between quality/ intensity/ fast pace AND quantity/ extensive/mileage volume, and easy recovery between intervals, so as to allow the body to recover between intensive efforts, and brought the athlete back to the track, therefore differentiating from the naturalist philosophy of ‘fartlek’. The new method started to fascinate the world of athletics mainly through the achievements of the German athlete Rudolf Harbig, who, training under the supervisor of Gerschler, broke the world records for the 400 m, 800 m, and 1000 m, between 1939 and 1941, Athletes from all over the world started to follow with increasing interest the new German ‘school of training’ based in Freiburg.

Initially, Gerschler recommended repetitions (usually between 8 and12 in a session) kind of 100s, 250s, 300s and 400 metres for sprinters and middle-distance runners, and over 400s, 500s up to 1000 ad longer intervals for long distance runners.

He also defended that winter training should not be very different from spring and summer

training, that is, the athlete should train at a competitive rhythm in winter/introductory phase as well, and as you know Lydiard training don´t.

I´m not a follower of Gersheler interval training straight, but on our issue of debate, it´s undeniable that among German interval training and Soviet-East German school that Lydiard confesses that he is influenced (I insist and i´m right) Lydiard training don´t do race pace, and fast intervals as interval training and several other of that period did and that the modern ones they do. Once again Lydiard is “aerobic first”.

These 2 principles of Gersheler – soft training modulation and the use of aerobic and anaerobic stimulus in every phase of the training periodisation caused some perplexity at the time, as there wasn’t a differentiation between preparation and competition phases during the season, and because it was hard to trust that repetitions over so short distances could in fact improve an athlete’s resistance. Relate to the Gersheler training principles is the use of fast pace and specific pace on every phase of the season, and that is what in part the modern training periodisation prescribes in what is a revisionismof the training periodisation of Gresheler with the use of interval training as straight and exclusive as Gersheler did eventually.

With the 2nd world War in which Harbig himself was killed in Malta in 1943 (or 44 I don´t remember), athletics and sports in general took a ‘back seat’, and Gerschler’s method was temporarily ‘forgotten’.

However, the achievements of the Zatopek, between 1947 and 1953 – after the 2nd world war and on the 52 olympics , led to important new developments in the method.

Zatopek had been influenced by a pre-War German magazine named “Leight (?) athletics in which Gerschler’s method was outlined, and applied to his long distance running. As you might see Gersheler did start to formulate his training method with writing (by popular non- academic magazines long before the 60s. Thata initial early Gersheler writing It was not scientific writing but are every Lydiard writing science straightly ? (LOL)

However, instead of simply copy Gercheler training, Zatopek adapted something different: he reduced the distances for the repetitions (200s and 400s were the standard distances used for that), and increasedthe number of repetitions (30-40 times 200m or 400 m – and even 60 repetitions sometimes -, all done with moderate intensity, in a single session, with a short and active recovery interval between repetitions. It should be noted that his adaptation of the Gerschler’s method was based on his own personal experience only nd what he reads, rather than influenced by any sort of scientific evidence – but did work.

Influenced by Zatopek’s experience and what he managed to achieve through adapting

his method and when he gets more experienced and with the cooperation with Carl Reindell Gerschler later improved his own initial version. Working together with the

physiologist Herber Reindell.

Hhe introduced several modifications (although maintaining the general idea behind the method): shorter distances for the repetitions; a rigorous control of intervals between repetitions by the pulse rate; the intensity of repetitions; and he number of repetitions. Through their joint research, Gerschler and Reindell concluded that the main effects of ‘interval-training’ were produced during the incomplete interval between repetitions rather than during repetitions. Hence the term ‘interval-training’ that he names “rich/profitable pauses”.

After a long research period in Frieburg, during which thousand of athletes from several countries were monitored, the late basic ‘toolkit’ of ‘interval-training’ was then established later in the 60s but the training method was used way way back to the 40s : distance for repetitions (100 m and 200 m; 400m); interval recovery (30’’ to 60’’ for 100 m, and 70’’ to 90’’ for 200 and 400 m); time to cover the distance in each repetition; number of repetitions (up to a maximum of 40x100 m, or 30x200 m, or 25x400 m); and action during intervals, always ‘active intervals’. For the first time science entered into the field of athletics training – a link ever present since.

Other sports too (e.g. cycling and swimming) gradually started to adopt it. However, this euphoria was followed later on by important criticisms and some of that criticism was right.

Meanwhile, several athletics coaches who had been influenced by the initial version of

the ‘interval-training’ method had gradually started to introduce some adaptations

themselves. It was the case of the Mihaly Igloi, who integrated ‘interval

training’ and the Swedish ‘fartlek’ for ‘quality training’, and complemented it with a high

volume of training (up to 200 Kilos per week sometimes). He also divided daily

training into two sessions, and designed training sessions according to the individual

characteristics of each athlete. Following Igloi’s approach, Ilharos, Tabori and Rozsavolgi

broke several world records in distances ranging from 1000m to 10000m between

1955 and 1957.

At the time of the ‘Hungarian revolution’, in 1956, Igloi migrated to the US.

In other countries, too, various new methods were developed on the basis of ‘interval-training’, namely in the then Soviet Union, Vladimir Kutz being its most emblematic athlete by winning both the 5000m and 10000m in the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, and breaks the world records in both distances.

rekrunner wrote:

In Lydiard contexts, "anaerobic" means lower arterial blood pH.

Lower than what?

And should we not go beyond Lydiards misconceptions of aerobic and anerobic nowadays?

C

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Zatopek had been influenced by a pre-War German magazine named “Leight (?) athletics in which Gerschler’s method was outlined, and applied to his long distance running.

Most likely the original title of the magazine was "Leichtathletik", which means the sport that is called "track and field" in English. And a direct translation could be "light athletics" or "lightweight athletics".

There is still a magazine with that name in Germany today ... but i don't know if it is based on a pre-war magazine.

And you' are right: Harbigs Training differs a lot from Lydiard Style training. Harbig used repetitions (or some workouts might be called something like "intensive intervals") through the whole year. He even shovelled snow from the track to be able to train on the track in the winter.

Harbig also ran 20-45 min continuous, but on most days only for the warm-up. His focus was on the other workouts.

C

rekrunner wrote:

Lydiard published detailed effort tables describing the paces for the different efforts in his first book in 1962. It's been public knowledge for 50 years.

There is very little mystery surrounding the appropriate paces.

Then it should be easy for you to translate that efforts into paces for our 3h marathoner? Can you do it?

C

Antonio, this has gone far enough. Stop trying to prove things. It's clear your understanding of this stuff isn't exactly high level so why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself?

I was reading through this post of yours and thinking to myself, boy Antonio's English has really improved. Then i read a little further and realised these weren't your words, well maybe 10% of them were, but the rest? Someone else entirely. So i grabbed a sentence and ran it through google and look what i found, i found where you keep your knowledge, online.

Does your Portuguese compatriot know you are plagiarising him? Like i said you are intellectually dishonest, so STOP IT!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets see what has been actually said in this massive quote you just used from Mr Manuel Graça. Have you met him by the way?

I was talking about periodisation not intervals.

This is why i like it so much, the naturalist aspect. 'Intervals are very powerful' my coach said, 'but also very dangerous.'

So i take care with them. Ensure the balance of capacity and power remaining in tune. Utilise intervals once high levels of capacity are established. Keep the dangerous took in check. Our politicians should be doing the same with the power we extend them, but this doesn't seem to be happening does it, just like in track and field. Greed is the same everywhere you go.

You would seize on this aspect, but i did already allude to the stupidity of using this as support for your own ideas. It seems i was wrong about Gerschler not using intervals 'all the time', but it does appear that they were used as the primary training tool, probably 90%+ of the time.

Gerschler didn't modulate throughout the year because that idea wasn't around yet. He was too busy looking into a very finite thing, this interval training. He hadn't looked out more broadly yet to see any larger cycles. He was too busy looking obsessively at a really small one. The immediate work/rest cycle. Matveyev went further in looking at larger and larger cycles in the training and that's where any idea of modulation throughout the year came from, along this scientific line of thinking these guys were following. Obviously Lydiard came across this periodisation on his own through his naturalist approach.

Can you prove this?

Regarding this continued blind argument about race pace training. Sure Lydiard didn't train anaerobic/race pace in any real fitness way in his preparation period. The athletes did training that was anaerobic/race pace in nature but it doesn't seem to have been fitness quality oriented does it? So your system trains anaerobic qualities in the fitness sense in the fundamental phase right? Gerschler appears to have done the same. Franz Stampfl as an offshoot of Gerschler is the same. Soviets NOT the same. Lydiard as you said not the same. So for me Lydiard and the Soviets mostly agreeing is good enough. The fact Cerutty was pretty much along the same lines in a methodological sense, adds to my feeling of security on this matter. The fact that the greatest hammer coach and the greatest lifting coach in the history of their sports both support this approach of high-volume, low intensity training, the fact that Petrov, the only coach worth talking about in pole vault circles, does the same with drill pattern repetitions that go on for an hour or more, just adds more weight. Nobby has a bunch of quotes from different people that i should go and find to add more weight to my side of this argument. You side is looking quite weak at the moment i might add.

You forgot which year he died did you? You didn't mention why Gerschler's method was revived into popularity. Did you forget that bit as well? In 1952, seemingly from nowhere,

Josy Barthel won the Olympic 1500m and all of a sudden Gerschler intervals came back in vogue.

Yes, Zatopek ran 5 and 10k and Gerschler was focused on 800m , so more reps were used by Zatopek. The mag is called Leichtathletik, which means athletics.

This is probably why i like Igloi so much, he blended the scientific and the naturalistic thinking together. It just seems like he was more emphasised by the scientific though. He, Stampfl, Gerschler for the raw product, Kratochvilova's training --- these are my external sources for ideas on the interval concept.

So Antonio. Intellectual honesty or more plagiarising?