Lydiard Imitations

gypsy wrote:

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?

Is there any actual valid research that shows that a certain point on the lactate curve is more significant than another to predict fitness or race times?

Fatigue occurs if you run - at any pace. The faster you run, the sooner you will tire.

So, let us say you can run 1 hour at 6'00/mile. He might tire after 30 min, if he runs at 5'45/mile pace . If he runs 5'30/mile, he might have to stop after 12 or 13 min.

If he goes slower than 6'00/mile, he will last longer, but not forever. Maybe 2 hours at 6'20, maybe 3 hours at around 6'55/mile.

So at any pace there will occur fatigue - sooner or later.

So, can there be a general sweet spot? where is it? Or is it more important that the pace fits to the goal of the training. i. e. the pace of the planned race, if we talk about real training? (Not talking about regeneration, which can be run as slow as it is possible without significant biomechanical drawbacks)

I know that the idea of one or more certain "magical" training paces is very attractive. But generally I consider that a kind of wishful thinking.

C

SOVIET TRAINING PERIODISATION – EX-EAST GERMAN – LYDIARD PERIODISATION

Here you got the same mistake that you did with Gersheler training. One thing is the public notice to the community, other thing is when one training is formulate as empiric practice and as you might understand public.

Most of the scientists and physiologists from the ex-communist bloc, namely Ex-URSS and ex-East German. This cooperation and share of information made that most of the that countries did share the same information, the same knowledge and similar training principles. It´s what happens about training periodisation in athletics.

You say that Matveiev

Matveiev flows a periodisation approach that flows the seasonal periodisation (as the seasons goes: winter, spring, summer, and fall), but actually in distance run, the competition is year round with a dense competiition schedule without major intervals.

Matveiev periodisation it´s not built for long distances, and the use of that periodisation it´s just collateral to distance run events. The advance of physiology denies the Matveiev premises, namely the interest of more frequency of specifics and more quantity of specific training in every phase of the cycle of periodisation. World top class athletes do need to be in top shape several times on one year season. Some revisionism of Matveiev has been done by Arosiev and Kalinin and both do introduce specific training on early stages of preparation. Generic charge/stimulus has been reduced and specific charge percent is higher and higher.

Anatoli Bondarchuk, created the original block periodized plan for non-run specialist: hammer , throwers, which certainly was very different from distance run need.

Fractal periodisation was been abandoned in modern times. Fractal periodisation it´s nothing but Lydiard training periodisation. Vladimir Issurin and Vassili Kaverin.

However with this resume i´m distant from our main debate. Let´s get back to Matveiev. On Romanian Bompa interview we might read “…Matveyev was the first author to really analyse statistically what the Soviet athletes used in training for the 1952 Olympic Games. His work validated the concept of periodization… that is, that the annual training plan should be divided into phases of training, with each phase having a specific training objective. And that these phases themselves should also be subdivided into even smaller training phases called ‘macro-cycles’ (of two to six weeks’ duration) and ‘micro-cycles’ (a week of training)….”

Bompa that is Romenian he asks the question:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/spor...or-bompa-40858

“…How did you get on with the Russians? It’s funny, looking back on my time then, as the Russians wanted to steal everything that had been successful in any of the Eastern European countries. So much so that, in the West, it’s often thought that the Russians discovered everything in training!... “

Did you read ? Initial investigation of Matveiev is way back from 52, and not just to 62 when the work is turn out public among the scientific community.

I could quote many more documentation that shows that every “ex-communist country” and that every rocket scientist of that period did cooperate together to the same training principles.

This is why I named the East-German.

“Run to the Top” first editions is from early 60s. Right ? As in the case of Matveiev Lydiard did start to build his training method early on the 50s. Right ? Therefore I don´t know if he knew about Russian-Ex-East German periodisation and in what date, but eventually he got knowledge of that kind of periodisation. This is just my speculation but it´s possible if we know the dates.

What I know precisely that Lydiard periodisation is highly influenced the East-German method it´s not by my imagination of one phone call hypothetic.

I´m not able to quote by memory with accuracy, but if you read one Runners World interview that Lydiard did to that US magazine – I guess it´s an intreview from 74 to 76 RW edition – i´m not quite sure about the date or the edition –but i´m sure he did and he says that his own periodisation took influence from East-German scientists and namely the 6 week of anaerobic training that´s what the east-germans do consider the maximum length of weeks of anaerobic progress.

If you are interested you can do your own investigation and you will see that i´m right.

I Also read another Lydiard interview from that same period on the Swiss magazine that the Director is Noel Tamini that Lydiard repeats the same idea, that he took his training periodisation from the Soviet-East German periodisation

Therefore it´s documented it´s not my imagination.

YOUR PAST QUESTIONS

On your past posts you say that I don´t reply to your questions. It´s not my opinion. I did reply to your questions, not by post replies to you eventually, but the great number of posts that I did on this thread and the central subjects that I did comment and did debate covers most of your questions. I did justify what I think that “aerobic first” is a stupidity by a few training perspectives. That you don´t understand or that you don´t want to understand or that you want to keep with your own opinion, you are free to choose. Renato and a few others did post to answer all your questions from a different perspective that I did. If that doesn´t satisfies you, sorry…

gypsy wrote:

Gerschler didn't modulate throughout the year because that idea wasn't around yet.

That is far from the truth.

If you looked closer at Harbigs training by Gerschler (what you may never did), you would find modulation through the year.

There is modulation in training volume and intensity. A lot of Harbigs Training was documented.

Maybe you should read a bit more about Gerschlers training first?

C.

sorry that link was this:http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f13/gerschler-interval-training-811513/Then there is this interpretation of what Gordon Pirie did.http://www.meetup.com/SanDiegoRunning/messages/boards/thread/8157709The main bits:

and the session itself:

and the techincal side

I immediately thought of Cerutty when i read this. Wondering at the connection between the two on this stuff. Also one coach from this era 50/60s developed a sprinting technique called 'roosters' where you would basically run with your hands on your hips whilst doing a stride. This was fundamentally to remove arm action and to learn to run with the body, like what Pirie seems to have done. Very cool.

DerC wrote:

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

Leichtathletik, right. Thanks.

Of course that Harbig did sevral trainig out of my classic interval training Harbig post.

However I need to resume and synthesis in what is the main core of Harbig training and in what is essential to our debate,, because if I try the details it will take a book to write !

About your comment that the tired occurs (grows) in continuous at every pace independently of the pace, you are right. My problem it´s that the theory of "Central Governor" by Tim Noakes isn´t proved. Not him or no one sle did prove that the reason why one runners rusn fast on long distance than the other is by the "Central Governor" theory.

DerC wrote:

There is modulation in training volume and intensity. A lot of Harbigs Training was documented.

Maybe you should read a bit more about Gerschlers training first?

C.

Yes i should. Perhaps you can show me your own source of this knowledge you are putting forward as i can't seem to find much so far.

However, you are nitpicking, some modulation through intensity and volume adjustments but no modulation in terms of periods was present yet, which was my main point to Antonio.

Anyway, do you have a link?

Antonio Cabral wrote:

About your comment that the tired occurs (grows) in continuous at every pace independently of the pace, you are right. My problem it´s that the theory of "Central Governor" by Tim Noakes isn´t proved. Not him or no one sle did prove that the reason why one runners rusn fast on long distance than the other is by the "Central Governor" theory.

There are theories or models that can be proven, others can't. I think it is typical of theories in the science of sport and exercise physiology that they work will within a limited range of sports, of distances or phenomenons. But with most theories, there are cases these theories fail to explain sufficiently. So there is the need for new theories, and now and then someone comes up with a new theory, or with a expanded and refined model like Noakes did with Hill's model.

But most models and theories have their flaws and fail to explain some of the phenomenons we see in practice.

So in my opinion, the central governor model can explain some things, which can not be explained by the "lactate threshold model". But there are surely things that cannot be explained by the "central governor theory" as well.

C.

DerC wrote:

Or is it more important that the pace fits to the goal of the training. i. e. the pace of the planned race, if we talk about real training? (Not talking about regeneration, which can be run as slow as it is possible without significant biomechanical drawbacks)

C

If you take this philosophy to its logical conclusion then the ideal "theoretical" training plan will consist of a race or time trial over the target competition distance every few days with recovery days of rest or jogging in between. This is similar to the training philosophy of Paavo Nurmi and Jack Lovelock. Training and performances in distance running have improved a lot since then.

DerC wrote:

Is there any actual valid research that shows that a certain point on the lactate curve is more significant than another to predict fitness or race times?

I was careful to avoid this word 'point' and instead referred to a range. This stuff i really interesting so i'm hoping you know more about it.

The way i figure it is like this: at certain combinations of intensity and duration clearly observable effects begin to occur in the body. When these effects occur at any given pace, a decrease in the capacity to keep performing at the same pace occurs. Somewhere in range of this effect we can measure a significant change in the amount of lactate in the blood. So this lactate curve corresponds with this lose of pace/performance/velocity ...

As physiology has developed it's made us aware that lactate isn't the cause of this decreased performance functionality, it is in fact assisting in the process of creating energy to enhance functionality. Instead other factors are now looked at as the cause of this dysfunction - from the presence of a 'central governor' to temperature limits, hydrogen ion accumulation and probably others i'm unaware of.

So whatever the reason we are inhibited so strongly from continuing our previous pace, the fact is that it happens, 100% of the time. Since this 100% certainty exists we can use this information to determine training paces for any given distance, ala Gerschler and many since.

So we have these threshold levels because of this information. It works. I just wonder at the need to always be tuning into race pace. Sure it is essential for performance but all the time?

gypsy wrote:

Anyway, do you have a link?

One of my sources is a German book by Toni Nett from 1960 or 1961. I don't think it is available in English. If I find any good link, I will let you know.

Who is nitpicking and why? You did your post the way you did, i can't change it. I don't think my comment qualifies as nitpicking.

Of course periodisation is not on the same level in 1939 than in 1955 or 1960. But to postulate that people like Gerschler did not think at all about periodisation and modulation with a certain goal is going to far.

C

Euro Runner wrote:

If you take this philosophy to its logical conclusion then the ideal "theoretical" training plan will consist of a race or time trial over the target competition distance every few days with recovery days of rest or jogging in between. This is similar to the training philosophy of Paavo Nurmi and Jack Lovelock. Training and performances in distance running have improved a lot since then.

That is a misunderstanding of my point or my logic differs from yours or a mixture of both.

But keep contributing, maybe you can add something constructive or productive in the future.

C

DerC wrote:If I find any good link, I will let you know.

cheers

Who is nitpicking and why? You did your post the way you did, i can't change it. I don't think my comment qualifies as nitpicking.

OK so i used the word modulation in the sense of periods, so i didn't clearly define it. Yet it was in the context of periodisation. I will be more careful with you in future :)

Of course periodisation is not on the same level in 1939 than in 1955 or 1960. But to postulate that people like Gerschler did not think at all about periodisation and modulation with a certain goal is going to far.

I don't know. I need evidence of a training program to see the extent of the modulation and whether periods were present.

Well ... I heard Sri Chinmoy talked about long distance

running and meditation. However I disagree. In most schools

of meditation, the body is supposed to be completely motionless. This is not the case when somebody is running. And there is no way you can reach the deep stages while doing a physical activity.

Lydiard was a good running coach. I do not think his intention was to be a "guru" for people who would want to reach meditative stages.

My Greshler interval training exposition is take by my book study of athletics which i got a diplome aproved and with credentials from the IAAF. Do you want something more official than this ?

Therefore might be he took from the same source, I don´t know, i don´t know him at all, i didn´t read this PDF either or copy from that portuguese man source.

You contest many things, it really doen´t matter your opinion, or what you like or you don´t, if you like Lydiard or you don´t, if you like.

It´s useless that you continue to deny the link of interval training with the periodisation and the link of Lydiard with East-German periodisation , or did i imagine that intreviews ?

Initial question is "Lydiard aerobic first is stupidity". Nothing that you say or ask me is vital information that make me change my opinion, and i said why i say so.

If you want to keep your "aerobic first" please do it. It´s such a training stupidity.

Sri Chinmoy, perhaps we should call him the master of running?

I joined his movement or whatever it is for a few months. I started thinking about the meditation mind a bit and then one of my coaches took me to a weekend seminar with a renowned Zen Buddhist called Richard Baker. Over that weekend i learned the basics of meditation. When i returned a few days later my coach passed me this leaflet for meditation. We went along and it was at a Sri Chinmoy center. We applied to join and were accepted. Then i started meditating with their group and reading the extensive library. Awesome stuff. I found so many things in his books and one most interesting one was he trained for and competed in the decathlon. So my eyes lit up at this of course. In one book was a picture of his throwing the shot put, in his mid teens. I kid you not this release position is mechanically perfect to a degree you don't see in the shot putting world. Not even Timmerman or Oldefield, in my mind, were this correct.

I agree that Lydiard didn't want to be seen as a guru. Cerutty we can't say this but Lydiard never seems to have gone there in anything i read. Everything is practically grounded as far as i can tell, and he never seems to talk directly about the mind, so unless i've missed this in his writings i agree with you.

I don't agree about how you've applied stillness though. Stillness in action is at the heart of every Zen discipline from someone as minimalist as the tea ceremony through to something as dynamic as aikido. However, the root of zen is zazen which is seated meditation, so there we find the physical stillness. Sure first we must cultivate mental stillness with the assistance of physical stillness at first. But the process from seated to standing to walking is well within the Zen Buddhist traditions i'm aware of.

So if i follow this process of seated (or even lying), through to standing and then into walking, the next step is the slowest possible form of jogging. As any process it needs to be built progressively from the ground up, but i rely on what i just said as truth, and am actively involved in that process as we speak.

Do you meditate?

Oh on the other hand i think you can go directly into this meditative state without starting from sitting and going through it that way, but it requires extreme fatigue. I think this is how Lydiard was unspokenly getting athletes into the mental state he had already discovered.

So this guy Osho, formely Bhagwan Ragneesh, uses a system of dynamic meditation for Westerns because they find it diffcult to just sit and meditate with burning off excess energy first. Whereas the Indians don't seem to have this problem. Anyway this is what he says about dynamic meditation:

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Meditation/Meditation_Techniques/Active/What_is_Dynamic_Meditation.htm[/quote]

Hey, i'm just going by how you are expressing yourself. That's the true test Antonio.

I admire your irrepresible spirit, if nothing else at the moment.

You directly translated the Portuguese version into your post. Directly. The differences between what i am looking at and what you posted are in the presence of words like and, to, in, for. So i agree i'm looking at a difference source to the one you plagiarised. You took it from the original Portuguese source, mine is an English translation, just a more thorough English translation than yours. Did you use an online translator? Of course you did.

Unfortunately the evidence is right there in that post of yours. Anyway can check if they want. Should i find an email for the author and find out if he thinks it is plagiarised as well?

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

Some specifics:

I'm not denying this. I'm strongly questioning any Soviet/periodisation links simply due to time factors. Gershcler was doing his stuff 20 years before Lydiard and i don't doubt he knew of Gerschler. Stampfl had already arrived in Australia in 1955, so there was also this local connection to intervals as well. I think the fact Lydiard spoke out strongly against this form of training indiciates he knew about it. So instead, exactly like Matveyev, he placed that form of training in context with everything else, and assigned it's due role, as part of the system. Cerutty also spoke out against this approach mind you.

Ok so in Antonio world it is stupidity and in Gypsy world to think of this as stupidity is the real stupidity. Perhaps you should go and grow a plant? As soon as you look into the growth process of plants you will see your fractal periodisation in action. Then you will know what the natural world is doing.

See, you really don't understand what people write. Even a phrase like "I'm not going it again" doesn't register for you.

Yes, you got it. t´s true. I confess. I use online translator (LOL).

It´s the way i always post and by the way everything i say it´s plagiatte. For example when i wrote Roger Moens but it´s Rodolf Harbig it´s a problem of my online translator.

Might be you advice me one better online translator than the google one ?

In my country ther´s a idiomatic sentence that says "more blindly than the blind it´s the man that doesn´t want to see".

You don´t want to see, you are as HRE that ion this board said to Renato "you don´t change my opinion"

I see you know something about training, simply you don´t want to agree to my answers. I don´t need that you agree, i just think it´s funny that you ask me questions, it´s to knop my opinion eventually, then you disagree with my answer. My answer to a your question doesn´t nothing to disagree, just got to correct me what ít´s not factual, like if i would say something about Lydiard that´s not true. But your main problem it´s that you do some comments to my answers that isn´t true. Like your comment that i did imagine that Lydiard does the east-german periodisation. It´s not my imagination, it´s document at least on 2 Lydiard interviews.

You are so good to search the source of my answers, why don´t you try to find the source of Runners World that Lydiard says that his periodisation is take from east-german scientists and coaches ? You know that i´m true, don´t you ?

My answer it´s not to satisfy you, it´s just to support my early idea. I use facts, but of course i have my own intyrepretation of the facts, as you do your own.

fractal trainig periodisation ? Excuse me, another online translator mistake.

The Toni Nett book is translated to english.

Renato Canova said recently that his distance training method did change quite a lot in the last 10 years, and if he will write once again one book on marathon training as he did for the IAAF, that would be different, since he learned from experience.

But Lydiardists they think as Lydiard did 40-50 years ago.

As after Elvis Presley or the Beatles ther´s no better music, better songs, modern songs, different songs.

I´m not Renato and i don´t coach so good runners, so fast runers as he did, but in the last 10 years i did some more training knowledge and experience that my today´s training it´s not the same that was been on the past.

On the 70s i did trust quite a lot on Lydiard, but as far as i read more, i know somthing more and my experience grew up, on the present i´m more distant tah Lydiard, amd a really think that hs is outdate. But i´m not against Lydiard, and it´s not by the methoddologic argument. It´s because in my ethics everyone is free to choose. But this norm also needs of each one express his own individual opinion.