Peter Snell Interview and his thoughts on Lydiard training

Something to chew for Lydiardists.

Lydiard´s strict periodization isn´t needed anymore. Hill bounding phase is insane, and you can reach the top fitness easily by racing, no need to perform a period of "anaerobic training".

Simple base training including long runs close to marathon pace, tempo runs, short sprints to keep your running efficient throughout the year and then just race when you want to get really fit, don´t forget to keep those long runs etc. even in the racing season.

Just my thoughts, I know that Lydiardists will get mad no matter how carefully I put my words. So I don´t.

Old news. Lydiard told me in 1977 that it was possible to "race yourself fit" very effectively. I've mentioned that several times over the years on many of these kinds of threads.

I've often heard of such an argument but seriously question where people get those conclusions. Once I saw someone posting here that this well-known coach said that "periodization is dead/useless" and I went directly to the source and he said that he would prefer doing periodization if he could but, because of the racing schedule of today, "periodization is (hard to do so it's) the thing of the past" (meaning you'd need to somehow modify it).

I also wonder what you mean by "periodization is not needed"--whether you are saying you don't need to develop the runner's aerobic base first at all and you can/should jump straight into the races??? Whether you like to admit or not, and whehter it's Lydiardesque periodization or not, I'd say everybody periodize. Even Antonio's program, if you read it carefully and at least this is how I had interpretted it, after the racing season he would start with 2~6 weeks of "regeneration" period (phase number 1); then instead of Lydiard's Marathon Conditioning Phase, he would start runners straight with some sort of intervals or more race specific training but, if I read it correctly, he wouldn't start runners at full blast in the beginning; he would still ease them into it (phase number 2). Of course, with his schedule, the runner can hop in the race and start competing right in, say, February or March (north hemisphere) whereas Lydiard would highly recommend against it. However, I'm sure Antonio would (or might) not expect his runners to PR in February, say, 3 weeks after they're done with this regeneration period (or would he?). I'm quite certain, as well-established coach as he is, if he were to coach a runner to, say, European championships or Olympics in, say, August, I wouldn't think he would expect his runner to PR in February and hope he would continue his peak fitness till August. I'm sure he would draw a year's schedule and pick some races early on that are not as important to experiment, etc., and shoot for the highest peak in August. THAT, to me, is a sort of "periodization" though it's not going to be a strict blocks like Lydiard's.

If you don't want to spend a period of time, "piling up mileage" as with Lydiard, fine. But I seriously question about this comment of "periodization is not needed" or "periodization is dead". So you just do exactly the same training at exactly the same intensity and hope to improve somehow from season to season or peak on the competition that is most important? If coach Canova's module is VERY different from Lydiard's fine. If Antonio doesn't buy into a period of long slow running, fine. There ARE many different ways to the top. But NOBODY just crap-shoot and hope for the best and get to the top. EVERYBODY has a very carefully planned schedule to peak on the day. Call it what you like; but if that's not periodizing the year's training schedule, I don't know what is. De Castella did the same weekly schedule year-around but that's pretty much what he told me last month.

As for bounding, I'm a bit pissed of Arthur for talking so much about bounding and making things even more confusing than it already is. Lydiard's runners used 800m long hill but they didn't "bound" up it. One thing, though, if you thought hill bounding is insane, note that Arthur's runners did hill training 6 days a week, an hour everyday, with 22-mile run on the 7th day. It was ONLY possible BECAUSE they did such a strong base building (Marathon Conditioning) prior to that. Anybody who tries to do a type of hill training that we recommend WITHOUT building up first would be sorry. In other words, yes, anybody who's "against periodization" with building the base first would most likely think it's insane to even try such a hill training. Bear in mind also, however, that hill training IS what made them so strong; you talk to almost any of Arthur's runners and they would tell you that hill training is what made the runner they were. But even they wouldn't have been able to handle it without first building strong base--here, however, again Arthur himself talked too much about AEROBIC BASE but of course that's not the ONLY thing you build up while running 10 weeks of 100 miles a week, up and down the hills. You build up your legs as well. In other words, Arthur talked too much about AEROBIC base building and today so many people simply cross train and think their aerobic base is good. That's NOWHERE near what all running base building would achieve in terms of leg-strengthening, etc.

In regards to anaerobic training, well, you said it. You said what Lydaird, or HRE, had always said.

There, I don't think I "used any tone" or "acted mad" or anything. But if you take questioning your comment "being mad", I'd apologize beforehand. I guess I'm more of a short-temper guy but HRE (though he HAD lost his temper here and there before) and Kim Stevenson, especially Kim, are some of the most calm and gentle people I know. As far as I'm concerned, it seems it's the other way around--anti-Lydiard people go nuts over some of the comments Lydiardites make (Wetcoast would say Jon Brown did Lydiard, which JON BROWN had stated, and someone else go nuts, yelling at him, "How the hell can you say he did Lydiard...!!!").

Rekrunner:

I have to admit, yes, when I wrote that post, in a split second, it did come across my mind and thought about going back and check exactly what you wrote. But I thought the whole point at that time of that discussion was that Antonio said there are different ingredients and you need to layer them in a certain way and you said, in defense to Lydiard (I think) that even if you mix them all up in a different order, it'd come out tasting the same??? Something like that. And that's when I came in and said the order CAN be important. That was actually with my experience with mixing a bubble bath when you are supposed to adjust pH earlier otherwise the end products, though in the end everything else was mixed, either come out as deep green color or neon green like some nuclear waste!! All the same ingredients put togehter but WHEN you sprinkle citric acid to adjest pH made the world of difference.

Either way, I didn't mean to put you on a spot. I apologize.

By the way, I came back here because I was curious to see how Antonio would respond. I'd be very interested to see what he would have to say to my earlier comment as well as what he thinks of my last comment about "periodization".

Also, I think you (Antonio) may be itnerested in seeing this DVD I'm putting together on Lydiard training. Why don't you send me your mailing address? It's not done but, once the prototype is done, I'll send it to you. You know my e-mail address.

Now I was curious what I said, so I looked.

My point with the analogy specifically addressed the comment that Lydiard training did not contain the modern training ingredients of progression, and specificity. I don't know if Antonio said this, because the comments were signed "Khadaffi out of power". I said these ingredients were in there somewhere, but maybe in a different form, order, or quantity.

My thinking with the analogy was two think of two dishes with a lot of the same ingredients, and some different, but the preparation, order, and outcome is different. But just because lasagna is a complex dish with many ingredients constructed in a certain order, doesn't mean that spaghetti doesn't contain pasta, sauce, meat, and cheese.

If that makes any sense.

We could get philosophical, and ask if running at all is "needed".Renato Canova also uses periods, and includes circuit training.

F900 wrote:

Something to chew for Lydiardists.

Lydiard´s strict periodization isn´t needed anymore. Hill bounding phase is insane, and you can reach the top fitness easily by racing, no need to perform a period of "anaerobic training".

Simple base training including long runs close to marathon pace, tempo runs, short sprints to keep your running efficient throughout the year and then just race when you want to get really fit, don´t forget to keep those long runs etc. even in the racing season.

Just my thoughts, I know that Lydiardists will get mad no matter how carefully I put my words. So I don´t.

NobbyH wrote:

By the way, I came back here because I was curious to see how Antonio would respond. I'd be very interested to see what he would have to say to my earlier comment as well as what he thinks of my last comment about "periodization".

Also, I think you (Antonio) may be itnerested in seeing this DVD I'm putting together on Lydiard training. Why don't you send me your mailing address? It's not done but, once the prototype is done, I'll send it to you. You know my e-mail address.

Even before to reply your posts, i want to thank you the time you take to reply me. I imagine that you are a busy person, so my thanks.

I read your last posts. Interesting posts. I will reply with my opinion, if you agree to share everything on this board. However it will take time and i will need several posts so many are the subjects you got into.

Nobby. I think that you are a serious man, but this time i think that you are open to discuss and curious to see my comment that you did in the past.

Despite that i knew instantaneously what to reply while read your posts, my problem it´s that since the portuguese is my mother language and as i don´t write in english as good and as fast as in portuguese it will take time.

Since i can´t say all in one single post, i ask you to not reply to my posts before i will finish.

All the other friends, you are all free to post, of course, but i willn´t reply to you, before i finish my several post replies.

Wait and see (wait and read...)

ps - Rekrunner. On my next posts i will reveal why on the Lydiard debate, i did post with different nicknames. I didn´t all the posts that some of you refers as my authourship but i did a few.

POST NUMBER ONESince you write so many good tips for the training debate, how should I start my reply ?Well, I start by contradict myself. Many times I did ask to focus the distance training approach in methodology and not just in stories, true life stories, or in individual experiences that usually can´t contribute to the methodological debate.

NobbyH wrote:

That's what makes our world interesting (incidentally, when I and my wife moved to Minneapolis, her friends took us out for dinner and we went to a Vietname's restaurant. When we got our disches, one of them realized that everybody was using chopsticks except for me who was eaching with a fork. "There's something wrong with this picture," she said! ;o)).

I was born and I still live in Lisbon the capital of Portugal. Last January I did travel to Christchurch NZ to be present in the 2011 IPC World championships.

As you might know Portugal is the antipode of New Zeland and Lisbon is the antipode of Christchurch. Lisbon is north hemisphere and west:38°44`N and 9°14`W and Christchurch is south hemisfere and east: 43° 31' S and 172° 37' 13" E.

When I was a young kid my teacher told me about earth antipodes. “The earth is round, like an orange” – he said, “and the antipodes are 2 places that are the distant ones and opposite ones”. I get back from school and I asked my father about the antipodes. My father while he smiles he said that our Portuguese antipodes were the New Zeland habitants. He added that when is sunny hot summer in Portugal, there, in NZ they are on winter with cold and rain and vice-versa. Every day when it´s daylight in Portugal, we are waked and doing some kind of activity, it´s night in NZ and they are probably sleeping, and vice-versa. We do the same kind things that they do, but different timetables. My father, he was so funny, he also said to me “Look. The people that lives in the antipodes, they live upside down of us. If we fly to NZ when we arrive there “we will get out of the airplane, we will walk with your hands” because we live upside down of them” he also said that once the All Blacks rugby team selection did arrive in Portugal that way – head down on the floor. As you might imagine, for a young kid I was dreaming of green Martians invading the earth like in the Orson Wells´s “The War of Worlds”, what my father told me about the NZ antipode habitants that live upside down it´s one strong kids image.

Some years later, I knew about Lydiard, Peter Snell; Murray Halberg. My father was been a runner himself, took me often to the stadiums to watch the local track meetings as well as national or international athletic meetings, when I was only 5 years old, and since then I fall in love and passion for running from that period on. At 64, I was 10 years old then, I new about Snell outstand success in the Tokyo Olympics and I ask him “this NZ distance runners why they are so good ?”. He remembers me “Didn´t I told you that they live upside down ? ! They are so good because they live upside down of us !”. Of course that my curiosity about Lydiard training starts from that moment on, and I wanted to know something more that what my father told me, that they got to train somehow different than us.

I knew that my father lied somehow. It´s like Father Xmas. He doesn´t exist, but eventually the toys arrived for the children. Yes, people of the antipodes they live upside down, but since the earth is quite round when we will get closer we will see the same, we will walk the same. Of course, the last January I get out of the airplane at Christchurch and I had the prove that what my father told me is not right, it´s a fact we live upside down, but when we get closer, we don´t live upside down. The NZ Lydiard runners they were good, but they weren´t so different and they don´t train as different as we live in opposite world upside down, or opposite training.

I think that this story about the antipodes is about human experience and human relationship. We may life apart, we did different opinions, different concepts, but since we get closer and closer, we got a chance to understand one each other and eventually we will realize that we aren´t as different as we supposed we are. Might be that the distance between my training methodological concepts and your owns – the Lydiard ones – is about different life experiences before we get contact and relate one each other.

(More to follow…)

NobbyH wrote:

Now, I would NOT be surprised at all, after all that we had tried to explain, that some people may still come back and say, BS. It ain't gonna work. Fine. Some people believe in knife and fork; some people believe in chopsticks... Some people believe in chicken, some still love beef. That's what makes our world interesting (incidentally, when I and my wife moved to Minneapolis, her friends took us out for dinner and we went to a Vietname's restaurant. When we got our disches, one of them realized that everybody was using chopsticks except for me who was eaching with a fork. "There's something wrong with this picture," she said! ;o)).

POST NUMBER TWO

I had the same experience that you did about the “tools/objects” of eat food. You were in a Vietname restaurant. You eat with in knife and fork, but the other clients they eat with chopsticks. You don´t say, but I imagine that you were eating some kind Vietnam food, some asian food kind and not one MacDonalds with chips that used to be eat with the hands.

I´m used to eat several kinds of food cuisine namely the Chinese and the Japanese food and I like it. It´s not uncommon that one Portuguese like to eat and drink foeign food or foreign drink.

Might be you don´t know but for instance the Japanese word “tempura” is a word and a type of dish that the portuguese introduced in Japan. Here you can see several Japanese words from Portuguese origin.

(Japanese words of Portuguese origin)

The Portuguese were the ones to introduce the tea drink in Britain. Queen Catherine of Bragança introduced the custom of drinking tea in Britain, a custom that was already very popular among the Portuguese nobility at the time. The tea had been imported to Portugal from the Portuguese possessions in Asia as well as through the trade Portuguese merchants maintained with China and Japan.

(Catherine of Braganza)

Once I was in Portugal and I sit down in one Chinese restaurant with my wife and son. I was teach to eat with chopsticks by a African born guy ( !) that was in the army in Macao, the past Portuguese territory, actually Republic of China territory. Some people think it´s hard to eat with chopsticks but it´s very easy. However all the other restaurant clients were eating in knife and fork in the Chinese restaurant except me. They look for me as I was some kind weird strange Martian, but what I was doing, is the ordinary thing, done by millions of people, eating food with chopsticks.

As you might understand when we do something out of the mainstream, the usual reaction of the ordinary people the “simple mind” is that we do something abnormal, quite wrong, despite that what I did in the restaurant is something very common. I was doing right and they did quite wrong. However, the difference of my restaurant story and your story is that was eating with in the Chinese restaurant with the usual tool objects that is normal to chinese food, but you are eating vietname food with uncommon objects to that kind of food. You were in Vietnam eating typical food that supposed to be done with chopsticks what is not normal practice but I was eating in Portugal but in a Chinese restaurant what seems to be more logic according that kind of food concept that you did.

You see, the fork and knife does exist because if you eat the occidental food, western food, like the French cuisine, you need to cut the food. Imagine one large beefsteak, you will need one knife to cut. But with most of the oriental food all comes to the table cute or small volume, it´s easier and effective and efficient to eat with chopsticks.

Most of the things we do ther´s some logical reason for most of the choices and for most of the decisions, while be the tools of eat, while be the training method.

We shall search for the logical reason of methodological principle that able us to understand the training. Sometimes this requires the understand of training principles and training methods that we aren´t familiar with, out of our training background and our training culture, but this needs to put on the same level of consideration our own training and the different one the “foreign” one. The rich strategy of learn and improve requires to know, study, analyze, to be able to understand what is out of our training culture, what is out of our training concept, some of that we did take for granted. This is the reason why i´m got so much interest in Lydiard training and curiosity.

(More to follow…)

Never could master chopsticks. I found that sometimes you can stab some of the bigger chunks of food with the pointy end of the chopstick though.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I think that this story about the antipodes is about human experience and human relationship. We may life apart, we did different opinions, different concepts, but since we get closer and closer, we got a chance to understand one each other and eventually we will realize that we aren´t as different as we supposed we are.

That's a great analogy, Antonio.

***************************************************

I told you to stop trolling. But you can't can you?

I open one exception to reply to this your post because you did it before I start my several post replies to Nobby.

You forget one point. When I wrote what you quote me I was thinking the Lydiard principles specifically, not about the training principles as abstract, or about every other training principles, but Lydiard specifically. Lydiard (as I see his training) does define strict training variants, strict organization of that training variants, and often when he writes or speaks about different training proposals of his own training organization or his training variants he refuses to accept.

Once I read one of Lydiard interviews that he says “I got no time spend and to deal with Peter Snell after 68 olympics because Peter refuses to run the long run every week and wants to miss it”. Did I read wrong ? Does the interview isn´t true ? See how Lydiard was not open to training changes from his main training method. Recently some of you, you did some attempts to show me a different Lydiard, more open to adjust the training to individual needs. The way he treats with peter Snell about the long run shows what is the Lydiard strict training concept: strict use and strict discrimination of training organization and strict use and strict discrimination of the training variants and his own training concepts consequently. Does he changed completely ? Among so many books, conferences, posts on LRC (how many), every other source of information what is Lydiard-public, show me something BEFORE LYDIARD PHYSICAL DEADH that I might conclude that i´m wrong, and that his training method permits to adjust to the several needs, or training individuality. I don´t want Keith book whatever, I want a trustful source Lydiard-the-man/Lydiard the coach himself that permits to think that he isn´t the strict-discriminate Lydiard kind of training that we did imagine for decades.

You said that Lydiard doesn´t differentiate between athletes, be 800m to marathon, without considering the distance event or the individual type. Right ? This is Lydiard range of training variants, very similar, quite equal to every kind of runner, every kind of distance event.

Yes it´s true that I did participated in the thread describing "2 kinds of runners" with John Hadd. It´s also true that one clear conclusion from that thread, is the requirement to adapt the training to the athlete. But this is MY and JOHN HAAD´s training principle, not the Lydiard one. Lydiard doesn´t concede that training principle of training individualization as Hadd and I do we do. Consequently when I do the need of training individualization procedure i´m IN my training principles not OUT of my training principles. When I do training individualisation it´s MY OWN training principle, i´m coherent and in agreement of my training principles, but Lydiard or Lydiard followers they don´t, because in the training principles of Lydiard training doesn´t exist the training individualization principle.

Besides, now you say that Lydiard in private he did interval training during the aerobic block, and recently I knew about the non-competitive week competitive week periodisation, another training variable that contradicts all that Lydiard wrote and no one during so many years did notice that training “adaptation or training need”. As far as some of us we continued to comment on Lydiard I suspect that in the future might be one day we discover that Lydiard did miss the hill training, the long run, the 100 miles etc. Finally we will discover that we Lydiard did fight with vigor, all he says in his conferences, all his life style to refuse some training organization and some training variants , is a lie. This is what I mean by Lydiard out of characterization. To be out of his own main training principles, as I would be out of my owns if in the name of training adaptation I would start to miss the interval training during the build of aerobic condition, that wouldn´t be my training, that would be Lydiard training eventually. Further I will come to the training need of individualization on my next part of my Nobby.

With all respect I want to say my opinion about why do you lack so many information about modern training. It´s because you and many of you are self-centered in Lydiard training. I can´t communicate in posts and threads all I know about different training out of the Lydiard one, I´ve been investigate for decades and try to learn since 1964. I also can´t “project you”, my own individual training experience. I did coach for decades and did coach several hundreds of runners in different decades, from different continents, from different citizenships, different gender, from the top ones 1:48/800m to 3:40/1500m to 3:59/mile to 13:20/5000m to 2h09m/marathon to poor performances, 20:00/5000m to 5:22/5000m, to 3h46m in the marathon. I also tried to learn systematical about coaching since I was 10 years old and i´m 56.

Or I advise you to get out of the Lydiard paradigm for some period, not to deny Lydiard, but when you study another method, don´t try to relate everything to your Lydiard referential, get yourself in the position that “ignore” Lydiard temporarily.

Do you really think, that one individual, one coach, be the best one, be outstand, be genial Lydiard might have been, he is so perfect , he is so good, that no one else among the coaches might contribute to revised his training method or have another different idea that works better than Lydiard training ?

Do you really think that many thousand and thousand of coaches that act differently than Lydiard they are all kind of "poor" coaches, stupid coaches somehow and he is the only one on the top of the training method ?

Do you really think it´s possible such thing ? I don´t see nothing similar in the humanity every the human field you might consider, from art to science, from every human knowledge or talent. I´ve known several genius, from music to every other art, those of the science, the Nobel prize, after some time they are all kind of dismiss, or overtake somehow. Even genius like Einstein other scientists have different ideas somehow. Do you really think that Lydiard can resist to many more decades without be overtake by other training methods ? Are you so conservative that you think that Lydiard resists ?

HRE wrote:

Never could master chopsticks. I found that sometimes you can stab some of the bigger chunks of food with the pointy end of the chopstick though.

I`ve taught the same. I did many attempts and i wasn´t able at all. Until the day someone teach me the right methodology. It´s true. I learn in less than 5 minutes. What i taught very hard, finally it´s very easy.

HRE, just think...can´t be hard or difficult, how many millions of human beings eat with chopsticks since young age ? Can´t be hard ! It´s as easy or more easy than knife and fork.

Actually fast food, junk food is done with the hands !

It´s like that modern shoes that your run quite barefoot.

Abebe Bikila did win 60 Rome olympics barefoot. But the next 64 Tokyo olymopics that he did win and new WR that time he did run with shoes and shocks. he did run with shoes as well as on 68 Mexico olymopics that he did give up.

Many of us from the "Lydiard gang" here have said repeatedly that Arthur adapted his training to his athletes constantly. But when you're advising hundreds if not thousands of athletes and you're asked to write or talk about what you do you cannot possibly describe what you do with each of them. So you try to descirbe your main apporach and then work from there when you're dealing with an individual.

I cannot imagine Lydiard ever putting together a program that doesn't include a "long run." (By the way, Snell was long since retired by the 1968 Olympics so I don't know what was going on in the situation you mention. And Snell certainly believes in the value of long runs.) But that "long" run may be 2 1/2 hours for some people, 1 1/2 hours for other people and 1 hour for some other people. I've seen schedules he'd written with long runs in the 60-75 minute range. Looked at one way, he made a big change, i.e, shortening the long run to adapt to the athlete. Looked at another way he refused to change. I suppose if you want to criticize him for being inflexible you'll see it the second way and if you want to defend him you'll see it the first way.

NONE of us who post here and knew Lydiard have EVER said he had the best method. Never. Where does this keep coming from? And we're all serious fans and students of the sport and do keep reasonably abreast of what goes on in the training world. Most of what I see now is fairly similar to what Arthur came up with when he adapted his ideas for nearly year round racing. To me, and I think to most of us, Lydiard, done for almost year round racing, looks as modern as anything.

And yes, I could have learned to eat with chopsticks but never saw a reason to because even Asian restaurants here have knives and forks.

I agree that Lydiard couldn´t make an extensive list of his training adaptations.

Since a long time that i don´t open the site of the Lydaird foundation - but the last time i did open, in one part it´s written WHAT IS LYDIARD TRAINING (and i quote by memory): training blocks of one complete periodisation every season, one aerobic condition block , hill block, anaerobic block, etc. and it follows a description what the meaning and contain of each block, Also on that same part of the site is writtent WHAT IS NOT LYDIARD TRAINING. For example the interval training is only done on the last block. This my guide of analysis not the "adaptations", teh execeptions, the different training need.

If you read that both define, "what is" and what is not Lydiard training, you will understand ther´s not room to do the kind of training that is out of that "what is" as ther´s no room to do "what is not".

Now you and some of you, let me know that in the name of "adaptation" or training "need" can be out of the definition. So why is defined on the site "what is" and "what is not" ?

The kind of training like fartlek during the aerobic block for instance, i know and i understand that since some type fartlek is mostly aerobic can be done without violate the Lydaird training principles or definitions.

But different training organization of the blocks, change in each block training variable as it´s the use of the interval training during the arobic block (since Lydiard considers the intervals anaerobic) or the type of suggested non-competition versus competiton week of periodisation all this can fit on Lydiard training. I admit that Lydiard did it somehow, but what i comment is on the Lydiard main training structure of organization, not the "training adaptations that he did as training adaptation in single cases.

Anyhow in hundreds of runners that i did coach i never advised nothing that is out of my training define. For example i never advised LT training or long runs for 800m, i never did the same schedule for several runners or the ssmne schedule for different distance events. I never advised to skip specific interval training in every phase of the process. I do some training adaptations, but i never broke my training principles. I give to coach some runners simply because they did what i don´t agree or they want to do. My runners, I make them sign one contract that when they sign they are in obidience to my training method. If they don´t i take them out of my traininmg advise.

Hmmm. I think you mean a presentation that was written by Nobby. These were two introductory slides which were part of a much larger presentation looking at these points in detail.If we must stick to what Lydiard wrote when he was alive, then maybe you should too?

Yes. Of course the periodization is Lydiard training. But it's not the only thing that is Lydiard training. And yes, Arthur always answered negatively about intervals in the base phase. But he understood the word "intervals" to mean hard anaerobic training. Even if you assured him that you were going to keep the intervals easy and aerobic he wouldn't trust that you really were so there still would be some resistance to the idea. If you really buy into Lydiard training you probably believe that there is a general over reliance on interval training in the sport and I am not aware that he ever prescribed them in the base phase.

BUT, as I said, he did know of people who said they used his method, people who he knew well, who did put some intervals into their athletes' base phase and Arthur at least tolerated that. So it really depends on the type of interval work you're talking about. The thing to pay attention to is what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to improve aerobic fitness you'd do aerobic work, whether it was steady runs, intervals, or fartlek. If you're doing intervals regularly and straining to meet certain times you're definitely violating Lydiard's ideas.

Finally, he did develop this other model where you mix intervals in with distance work for most of the year. I don't know why Nobby and Lorraine don't mention that model in their "What is/What isn't" list but I suspect it's because they thought it would be too lengthy and confusing if they did. The idea is that you'll read the blurb and proceed to the message board and maybe read other things written there to get a much better idea of the method.