Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

[quote]Renato Canova wrote:

One thing is clear :

1) There are not competitions of RESISTANCE or ENDURANCE : in every event, the winner is the FASTEST as average.

2) There is not (in our events) TRAINING OF SPEED : the main point is to train in order to EXTEND the basic speed every athlete has.

[quote]

Yes.

The best way to extend/enhance the basic speed is to increase endurance.

Theoreticaly, a runner with a 59 second PB for 400M can run a sub 4 minute mile.

What they need most is to enhance/extend their speed fully.

Basic Lydiard approach did this 40 years ago and unless the human body has changed (it hasn't) it does so today.

rekrunner wrote:

As the second lap is highly dependent on the first, I can think of two scenarios which can impact your RATIO greatly:

- Running the first lap too slow leaves more energy for a fast second lap, resulting in a "favorable" ratio.

- Running the first lap too fast consumes too much energy, causing a slow second lap, resulting in an "unfavorable" ratio.

So equal times for the same athlete (using the same methodology) might produce a fairly broad range of RATIOs.

Has anyone calculated the correlation between this "strengh endurance" or "resistance" RATIO and the training methodology? Usually in statistics, we measure a value "R", to describe the correlation. You would have us take for granted that R=1. But unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

The study does all that kind of statistical quantification you refer. Crosses the result data with the lap ratio.

With an universe of 100 world top class 800m runners the data battery shows that 0.952014 is the mean ratio average.

Main conclusions are:

-Specific talent for the 800m remains the more important factor of top performance.

- By the data ther´s no evidence that some different training method promotes better ratio.

-As many other studies and many other analysis the data shows are 3 MAIN TYPES of 800m runners. The fast one (kind of 400m/800m) I would say the FT ones; the single 800m specialist; and the slow one (kind of 800m/1500m specialist) I would say the ST one.

- The study also shows that in any case the more interesting training variant to consider is the percent of event is specific training that brings specific strength endurance.

Awesome to have you on board Renato. I find whenever I read your posts that I see common sense. Please contribute more. I find this discussion on "Methodology" interesting (if not frustrating !) and feel with you on board it will get back a convivial state. I will stick my neck out a little and say that I feel the old man (Lydiard) would probably agree with much of what you say here.

I know I have learned a huge amount from your inputs and articles as I have done from others.

We "Lydiardites" are not as close minded as many credit us being !!!

Thanks again.

Thanks Hodgie-san. I have heard Arthur say exactly the same thing !!! Hence my statement about the old man agreeing.

Renato

Without deny your comment, namely the one of specific speed endurance that is also my opinion.

About the need of individual training need to each one individual runner characteristic more than the event, I want to say something.

Do you know how many of the top 100 all time best 800m ARE ALSO on the list of the top 100 all best 400m runner s, and how many ARE ALSO on the top 100 of the 1500m ?

Not many. Eventually the top 10 of 800m are on the top 200 of the 4000m or 1500m.

What this means ? It means that the specifism of the 800m event is more and more one event detached for all the rest of the speed and middle distance and long distance events. It means that the 800m does a unique character as event discipline and whatever this might mean requires detached specific training, somehow different from every other endurance event. Now, take a look for the al world best top 100 in 5000m and 10000m. You will see many more runners in both events.

Of course that the generic lines of training are near the same for every other distance event : good aerobic condition might not be a bad thing, good aerobic power might be good, but the fact that the methodological analysis shows that the 800m (and the 1500m to some extend) it´s the only distance event when you can´t sustain an optimal pace from the start to the finish, and this moves the scenario for another training territory of event specialization. I know that some try to double namely in championships and frequently in 800m-1500m, because if you can win 2 or make the final in 2 why you just confine to win just one ? But we will see that in the future of the 800m distance, will need high training focus on it´s own distance event training and not so many runners train or 2 distances. This means that might be the 800m needs different training relate to his individual characteristics but also that individual training shall take in consideration the unique and different specifism of the 800m among other speed or distance events. On teh last decades the 800m did not progress as the longer didtances because the interest (and the money) moved for long distances, but i guess that this will change and more coaches will focus on the 800m need of renew training methodology.

Anyhow, in my opinion, it´s not with the way back to the past to the Lydiard method that the new 800m training methodology will be build but with more modrrn training methiodology based in 800m specific training.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Awesome to have you on board Renato. I find whenever I read your posts that I see common sense. Please contribute more. I find this discussion on "Methodology" interesting (if not frustrating !) and feel with you on board it will get back a convivial state. I will stick my neck out a little and say that I feel the old man (Lydiard) would probably agree with much of what you say here.

I know I have learned a huge amount from your inputs and articles as I have done from others.

We "Lydiardites" are not as close minded as many credit us being !!!

Thanks again.

Thanks Hodgie-san. I have heard Arthur say exactly the same thing !!! Hence my statement about the old man agreeing.

Your joy and pleasure and you happiness comes in direct connection the famous ones you love and the ones you reverenced agrees with you and the identification with your training options.

As to say, if Barack Obama, The Queen Elisabeth would post on this board eventually, and if they would say something positive about Lydiard you will have a good day !

Thanks Kim !

If Lydiard would fall from the sky and would say something you will be with no training doubts for the rest of your days !

Thanks Kim once again !

Ps – With all respect for Lydiard, Renato or Hodgie or everyone else.

Do I detect a rare attempt at humor? Do we need a Johnny Appleseed to compare to Jon Orange?

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

Orange

Haven´t you read what rekrunner says ?

Jon Orange wrote:

And all races are tactical.

And Rudisha ran two World Records, 1.41.09 and 1.41.01

rekrunner wrote:

Otherwise we are just comparing apples to oranges.

The doping factor had the target to enhance his STRENGTH, not his SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE. In this case, because the idea of his doping was to work in the opposite direction (to inhance MAXIMAL SPEED, not SPEED ENDURANCE), this is an further confirmation of what I explained.

Also if we are all human being, there are big differences between the morphology and the physiological characteristics of every person. For example, we have different type of fibres :

a) Type I fibres, known as SLOW RED TWICH FIBRES (ST), that contain a large number of mitochondria, are surrounded by a fit network of capillaries and are capable of using a great amount of oxygen per minute. These fibers use the AEROBIC SYSTEM to produce the energy required for muscle work.

b) Type II fibres, known as FAST WHITE TWICH FIBRES (FT), that are best suited to swift efforts, but usually have a lower endurance. They use the ANAEROBIC LACTIC SYSTEM which entails the production of lactic acid. These fibres are grouped in two subtypes :

** Type IIa fibres, known as FAST TWICH OXYDATIVE (FTO), because can use a significant amount of oxygen. From this point of view, adequate training may bring them to be very similar to type I fibres. Endurance training mainly influences these fibres and increases their fat stores.

** Type IIb fibres, known as FAST TWICH GLYCOLITIC (FTG), because they use glycolisis, staying in the ANAEROBIC SYSTEM that leads to lactic acid production. These fibres CANNOT BE INFLUENCED TO USE THE AEROBIC SYSTEM, the one involving oxygen.

Athletes as Rudisha or the other I named before, are "animals" with high percentage of FTG. For these type of "animal", the training for aerobic resistance cannot give any advantage, instead can produce depletion in the activity of their fibres.

The aerobic activity at low intensity can be fundamental for athletes having a high percentage of ST, because they can build a better capillarization and can enhance the mitochondrial activity. The most important result can be a best production of SDH (succinic-deidrogenasis), the main aerobic enzyme.

On the opposite way, too much activity in this direction can inhibit the activity of LDH and CPK, enzymes that are mainly in FTG.

So, of course also these type of runners need a better aerobic support. But this must be done using a speed connected with their morphological characteristics.

For better understanding this, go to see the other thread about GIANNI GHIDINI 800/1500m training.

Hodgie-san, what you say is correct, but your approach is too much influenced by the idea of marathon.

If it's true that the key is to work for enhancing the SPECIFIC ENDURANCE, the problem is to understand what SPECIFIC ENDURANCE means.

In the most part of the posts about Lydiard system, there is confusion between GENERAL RESISTANCE and SPECIFIC ENDURANCE.

The high mileage at slow pace has two goals only :

a) To increase the capillarization, but this works for short time only. In the first two years from the beginning of running, if we increase the mileage we arrive to FINISH the possibility of improvement in that direction. This is one of the big difference between a modern merhodology, and an old methodology (for example, Van Aaken), that supposed possible to continue in the capillarization for many years, every time running at slow pace. I remember Michel Jazy, already able to run 3'36" / 5' (WR) / 13'24", starting every year from 3 hourse at 5' per km. That's the reason because he ran "only" 13'24", while with a modern approach could be easily under 13'.

b) To be used as Regeneration, after fast workouts. Under this point of view, also today we use this methodology, BUT NOT LIKE TRAINING ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING. One thing is to train FOR improving, another is to RECOVERY the real training.

So, the GENERAL RESISTANCE can be considered as the base for the SPECIAL ENDURANCE, and has a role only at the beginning of the activity (when you are very young), or, for short time, at the beginning of the season as introductive aerobic training, lasting no longer than 2 weeks.

Instead, we have to understand what the SPECIFIC ENDURANCE is.

Endurance is not a term with only one interpretation.

Every event needs Endurance, but this is the ability to extend your peculiar natural qualities. If you are a sprinter able running 10.0 in 100m, running 300m in 35.0 is ENDURANCE, running 1 hr slow is nothing, because there is no connection under the biomechanical and bioenergetic point of view.

This is the main point many people don't understand : they think that ENDURANCE means to run a lot of mileage, without giving importance to the INTENSITY of the endurance.

Another thing not clear is when people speak about HIGH MILEAGE. What does it mean high mileage ? Is 100 miles per week a high mileage ? For a 800m runner Fast type is not high, is damageous. For a 800m runner Resistant type can be ok. For a marathon runner is low mileage.

When somebody starts to think that THERE IS NOT A MILEAGE FOR RUNNERS, THERE IS NOT A SHAPE, THERE IS NOT A GLOBAL SYSTEM, but there are different specifisisms according to the athlete and the event, finally we start to live in a modern era for the training of middle distance, and we can finish to think that, for running fast, we need to use doping or some strange aid, because the performances are "out of the human possibilities".

Traning individualisation ? You need to get back to my posts and see how many times did i told you all about TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION ! ! You need to get back and read how many times i told you that the long run can´t be a rule of thumb.

Thanks for that. But it still leaves me with two questions. One is how you know that athletes such as Rudisha have high percentages of FTG fibres? Have you done biopsies.

And what about Lydiard's system do you think prevents someone with a high percentage of FTG fibres cannot train at speeds and intensities connected with their morphological characteristics?

HRE wrote:

Can you say specifically what about Lydiard's system pervents Konchella, Fiasconaro, or Rudisha from "exalting the qualities they have?"

Since i don´t know the person you did ask that question wants to say something more, i want to reply to your question with my opinion.

As usual the Lydiard adept self centers every question around the Lydiard. I tend to think like the JFK sentence "don´t ask what the country can do for you but what you can do for your country". Therefore i want to reformulate the question. The new question is "can you say specifically what about the modern training methods would done on Peter Snell, Halberg, Dick Taylor, all the kids of the Lydiard boys of the block ?

They would have done better performances ! The Peter Snell of those days hardly will lost for Konchellas, Fiasconaros, or Rudishas.

But of course, the actually possess advanced training methodology than the Lydiard one, but no one have a time machine to put Peter Snell younger. Also, at the 70s Lydiard training was the very best, not today. Today is outdate.

HRE wrote:

Thanks for that. But it still leaves me with two questions. One is how you know that athletes such as Rudisha have high percentages of FTG fibres? Have you done biopsies.

And what about Lydiard's system do you think prevents someone with a high percentage of FTG fibres cannot train at speeds and intensities connected with their morphological characteristics?

Physiology ?

The same method that Lydiard knew about the runner anaerobic condition or Ph. Experience. Don´t you see that the fast 800m runner that runs 400m very fast is the FT type 1.

Possibly but not definitively.

HRE wrote:

Thanks for that. But it still leaves me with two questions. One is how you know that athletes such as Rudisha have high percentages of FTG fibres? Have you done biopsies.

And what about Lydiard's system do you think prevents someone with a high percentage of FTG fibres cannot train at speeds and intensities connected with their morphological characteristics?

How things are. You, as most of the Lydiard adept, the champions of natural training, training pace by feeling, intervals with no major accurate intervals design, no need of major physiology background, and now you felt in doubt about the fibre type.

I read several articles where Peter Snell discuss about the fiber type, namely this one "Middle Distance Running" by Peter Snell. In: Reilly T. Secher N, Peter Snell and all, editors. Physilogy of of Sports. London: E&FN Spon, 1990.

Why don´t you ask this question how Peter Snell knows about to determine teh runner fiber type percent.

ps- as you might see i read Snell the Ph.D physiologist, my colleague.

This was something in my mind, but for a different reason. This is not a specific question to anyone in particular, but just me thinking out loud.When looking at any performance, and try to draw any conclusions, how can we separate training from the athlete? You can not simply look at today's performances, and conclude that it's only a result of better training than previous generations. Why? Because they are not the same athletes, not the same tracks, not the same competitions, etc.I don't doubt that we've learned a few things in the last 50 years, but training is not the only thing that has progressed in the last 50 years. Part time amateurs have become full time professionals. Track surfaces have improved. And we found a new class of athlete with some clear cultural and/or genetic differences between past champions.Put another way, assuming I have 24 sec 200m, and 50 sec 400m, and a 3:50 for 1500m, if I can only manage a 1:50 for 800m, how can I be sure it's because of me, or my training?

Renato Canova wrote:

...

THERE IS THE TRAINING FOR AN ATHLETE, not the training for a distance.

...

How can I say this diplomatically? There are some gems in what you write. In this thread, when you talk about training, you really give some food for thought. The problem is, one really has to look hard to "separate the wheat from the chaff".

Khadaffi out of power wrote:

Traning individualisation ? You need to get back to my posts and see how many times did i told you all about TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION ! ! You need to get back and read how many times i told you that the long run can´t be a rule of thumb.