Lydiard Imitations

I prefer to think of Lydiard as a balancer foremost.

To be honest i'm struggling to imagine only 4 weeks of intense anaerobic work. My approach is over 12 weeks for this stuff in a full year and 6 in a half year. Was he just talking about a half year program with 4-6 weeks?

That's a good point, downunder it is the same with XC competitions throughout most of the Winter and early Spring. Still, i cling to may claim that everywhere else in the natural world can be found this progressive development/growth pattern of phases. And in these cases the first phase is the least intense and the last is the most.

I think that's the underlying intent, to build capacity and then produce power out of it and as you said it seems natural. The differences seem to lie in how each methodology places it's emphasis. Lydiard emphasises aerobic capacity and the Non-Linear approach emphasises aerobic power whilst the Soviet's attempt to emphasise nothing. The periodisation is either following natural processes or is simply a way to break a large period of time up into more manageable pieces. If it was just the latter i would switch. I believe it does follow natural processes and so want to stick with it.

In the practical setting i agree with you that it is good to lose the rules and the athlete doesn't need rules, they need boundaries. However, here in the analytical setting i for one am trying to find some clarity on each issue and clear up my own misconceptions. I want to be precise about things.

I see methodology as the training program. It is created by applying the individual coaches principles to an individual athletes circumstances. A coaches programs will be methodologically similar even when applied to different athletes because the underlying principles that drive it remain the same.

What i believe is that these underlying principles conform to this 'Platonian Ideal' you mention. I see them as principles like gravity which actually have some concrete reality to them.

For example progressive overload is actually the progressive growth structure that you can find all over the natural world. It defines how things grow. The Fibonacci Sequence illustrated this growth function mathematically. Recently there was a virtual outbreak of a virus in the online game WoW. This virus spread throughout the game unchecked for some time. Now scientists are studying the spread of this virus as a predictive tool for real life viral outbreaks. The underlying rule of growth is the same. Compound interest follows the same function. As you grow you add to yourself, so future growth is already going to be greater because you are bigger than before. Einstein said 'compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe' I think it deserves it's place as a central tenet of training methodology.

Another example are the cycles. The rule: training flows in cycles. Smallest recovery cycle - 2 days. Then - microcyle say a week. Then macrocycle - say 3-4 weeks. Then mesocycle - 9-12 weeks. The training cycle - eg 26 or 52 weeks. If you go one cycle larger you cover the life cycle of the athlete. So why cycles? So much of our lives is governed by cycles. Heart beat is a cycle, breathing is a cycle, our walking/running stride is a cycle, each day is a cycle, there is a monthly and a yearly. Our entire life is a cycle and so is the life of the universe. Since our lives are irrevocably bound within cycles within cycles, it makes sense to me that training also follows cycles. A single training session is a cycle if we warmup and cooldown properly isn't it?

So when i argue against a methodology, it isn't against the actual methodology itself, it's against the mis-application of the principles that are behind it.

????? Harbig did not do any 20x 200 - and certainly not off 60 seconds. If he had done, then he would not have run as fast as he did.

NO that is not gradual drawing up, and also it did not exist. Gradual drawing up means doing the same type of training, for example reducing the volume and increasing the intensity.

I don't know if Harbig was Gershler's first athlete but probably not. Yes Gershler trained many people with interval training and developed it's scientific principles, but he did not train Harbig with interval training. Harbig was a sprinter, who ran 400 & 800 meters. He did not need any interval training! Better for him was the metabolism training, and the longer easier running for recovery & some endurance, but the main training was the fast training for his races - not interval training. As far as I know, Harbig did not do any interval training, certainly not in any important manner.

Lower than before the workout. Some workouts cause a bigger drop in arterial pH than others.What are the misconceptions? Actually, I think measuring arterial blood pH avoids a lot of the confusion that seems to surround these terms. It's simple, objective, and relevant. A bigger drop in pH tends to require more recovery.Should we go beyond? Depends on the context. If we speak about how Lydiard used the terms, we must understand how he understood it, in order to have the correct interpretation, not how physiologists some decades later understand it.But in general, I think we shouldn't ever go there at all. "Aerobic" seems to mean too many different things to different people, creating the illusion of contradictions (e.g. training with "anaerobic paces" can still produce an "aerobic workout"). I'm all for avoiding the terms altogether, and describe training with more direct terms like endurance, stamina, speed, form, etc, and paces like easy, steady, moderate, hard, slow, and fast. I think training can be described completely without using the terms "aerobic" and "anaerobic".

DerC wrote:

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

Herr C,Yes. Extrapolating any value from the published tables is a trivial mathematical exercise for me.The first thing to understand is that you must ask for which distance you mean. A 3/4 effort for 10 miles is much slower than a 3/4 effort for 200m or 800m. It's a mistake to generalize that "3/4th" effort must be MP, or HMP, or LT, without also specifying for which distance you mean. The efforts are relative to the race pace at that distance.My calculations assume a 3 hour marathon runner can run 10 miles, not in 60 minutes, but in 64:00. This means 100% is 6:24, and extrapolating from the tables, this gives me 6:34, 6:44, and 6:54, respectively.

DerC wrote:

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

C[/quote]

How do we know what he did? I'm finding contradictory evidence but no sight of an actual training plan. This quote for example indicates something different from the session we have been looking at.

NO that is not gradual drawing up, and also it did not exist. Gradual drawing up means doing the same type of training, for example reducing the volume and increasing the intensity.

Seems like Harbig was near the beginning of Gerschlers work. I don't see interval training as just for developing speed. So i'm not sure about the assertion of not needing it because he is a sprinter.

I guess we need a schedule.

Agree

What you say it´s true, but thsi doesn´t change the training profile related to what us defined. What really matter and defines Lydiard is one long "aerobic block of training first" Mostly is done at aerobic pace without sensible anaerobic or specifrc training included. All the rest - sprints, run on hill terrain - is just Lydiard training details not the essentials.

I see that only after many of my bored and plaggiate posts, actually Gipsy and all the others are obey to admit East-German influence on Lydiard periodisation, something it was denied before that i insisted and prove it.

But for some Lydiardists i don´t know nothing about Lydiard, and for other Lydairdistas i don´t undersatnd Lydiard, what makes me think that there some of tehjm got the "patent" of Lydiard understand.

Ok, now no one can run away from ten ex-East German influence on Lydiard periodisation. I guess that you are right. First Lydiard built up the basis of his own method, and early Lydiard method define is out of external influence. Later he knew that the Matveiv-East German periodisation fits on his training periodisation. Then, at a second moment, he tries to adjust his own method to that one periodisation. Early it wasn´t just 6 weeks of anaerobic training, 8 to 10. But later, after reading the geman reasearch it´s when Lydaird defines 6 weeks with precision.

Disagree with the climate. If so we will need one diffrent trainiong approach for Nordic runners and for african runners or NZ and on US would depends what state and what climate. Remember that we debatre Lydiard, and as far as i know Lydiard never did that diffrentiation. Do you know that Lydiard said something about it ?

I can´t accept to take Lydiard training, Steve Cram and Brendan Foster in the same melting-pot. We need to identify the runers that train by the Lydiard method, and that are the ones that don´t break no Lydiard basic norm, or no Lydiard essentials.

If anyone can break the Lydiard basic principles ansd is considered Lydiard as well, then i´m also Lydiard.

The runner that you name they all did training that violates Lydiard basic define.

I´m don´t mean to break one trainking detail, I mean to brek some training principles that Lydiard did fight to prescribe his own way.

I agree with you up to a certain part of what you say. Methodology is theory, and training is daily practice and the use of pragmatic decisions is something different.

However if the field of theory, there is one concept that is INCOMPATIBILITY. If we say that it on a cloudy day on that same moment and on that same place can´t be sun shining". Impossible. Or if you say "aerobic first" you can´t say "aerobic first, but well, we can do anaerobics or intervals at the same period. IT`S INCOMPATIBLE, and INCONSISTENT. The Lydiardists can´t say that is aerobic pace, and then they say that anaerobic is permited. They can say that mileage is progressive, if they say that 100miles is the top limit. This kind of inconsitency and incompatibility it´s what does the Lydiard training undefined.

Imagine that someone says me one norm of his training that is "let´s prescribe aerobic first", and don´t do specific training, intervals during in that period". But tomorow, the next day, many times he runs intervals, anaerobic workout this is imcompatibility, because he is out of the track of his own define.

It´s what SOME Lidiardists (not all) they do most of the time, Lydiard did create straight rules/norms. But they consider Lydiard runners the ones that train diffrently eventually.

When one top class runner says that he is influenced by Lydiard, immediately the Lydiardists they quote that runner as one Lydaird runner. But when we pay attention to what kind of training he/she does, when we go deeply to waht is the training he does - most of the times we see that despite he says he agrees with Lydiard or jus is influenced by Lydiard, but in reality he violates so many Lydiard norms that he is out of Lydiard training really. However in the next LRC post we will read the kind of post: Gelindo Bordin says that he is influenced by Lydiard (not literal) but that kind of comment.

Where did the "Lydiardists" say that 100 mile weeks are/were the top limit ?. Who are the Lydiardists that seem to be causing the problem with this discussion. I have only seen Two post here and one calls himself a "Dolanite".

A few sessions of Rudolf Harbig

(100m 10,6 200m 21,5 400m 46,0 800m 1'46,6 1000m 2'21,5)

IMPORTANT: Tempo run does not mean a run at "threshold pace" in this context. A tempo run can be almost every pace from faster than 800m race pace to a lot slower than that.

Harbig trained a lot more than theses sessions, but these should be typical examples. He trained 3-4 times a week in winter and nearly every day in the summer.

December 11, 1938 Training in the woods

1. 30 minutes warm up run

2. 15 min. running in curves around the trees

3. 800m acceleration run

4. light gymnastics

5. 1000m tempo run

6. 1000m walking recovery

7. 2000m tempo run

8, 1000m walking recovery

9. 3000m (most likely for cool down?)

December 16th, 1938: Track training

1. 45 min warm up run

2. 1000m Tempo run 3‘05

3. 15 min walking

4. 1000m Tempo run 3‘02

5. 10 min walking

6. 1000m tempo run 3‘11

January 27th 1939: Track training

1. 30 min warm-up run

2. 1200m tempo run

3. 15 min walking

4. 600m Tempo run, slightly sharper (faster)

5. 10 min walking

6. 500m Tempo run

January 29th 1939: Training in the woods

1. 45 min warm up run

2. 2000m tempo run

3. 20 min Walking

4. 3000m (most likely for cool down?)

February 22th 1939: Track training

1. 20 min warm up run

2. 2000m tempo run

3. 20 min Walking

4. 5*300m tempo runs with short recovery

March 17th 1939

1. 60 min walk (because of snowfall and bad weather)

March 30th 1939: Track training

1. 30min warm up run

2. 1000m Tempo run 2‘41,3

3. 15 min walking

4. 600m 1‘32

5. 10 min walking

6. 600m 1‘33

April 13th 1939: Track training

1. 30min warm up run

2. 200m Tempo run 23,8 s

3. 5 min walking

4. 200m Tempo run 23,8 s

5. 5 min walking

6. 200m Tempo run 24,3 s

7. 10 min Walking

8. 600m tempo run 1‘25,3

April 23th 1939: Track training

1. 30min warm up run

2. 800m Tempo run 2‘11

3. 15 min walking

4. 800m Tempo run 2‘02

5. 10 min walking

6. 600m Tempo run 1‘28

May 2nd 1939: Track training

1. 20min warm up run

2. 200m 23,2 s

3. 5 min walking

4. 200m 23,8 s

5. 5 min walking

6. 200m 24,6 s

7. 5 min walking

8. 200m 24,7 s

9. 5 min walking

10. 200m 24,2 s

June 1st 1939: Track training

1. 20min warm up run

2. 2*30m, 2*50m, 2*80m, 150m, 200m, 400m with crouch start and short recovery

July 6th 1939: Last track training before the German championships

1. 25 min warm up run

2. 300m Tempo run 38,2

3. 5 min walking

4. 300m Tempo run 38,2

5. 10 min walking

6. 500m 1‘11

7. 15 min walking

8. 200m tempo run 24,0

July 13th 1939: Last track training before the 800m World Record in Milano (1‘46,6)

1. 20 min warm up run

2. 600m Tempo run 1‘27

3. 10 min walking

4. 300m Tempo run 36,9

5. 10 min walking

6. 500m 1‘06,7

Well. I only state my opinion which are based on what I have

learned. I have in periods lived at yoga ashrams and practiced

a lot of yoga and meditation. Especially kriya yoga (Satyananda tradition). Kriya yoga is a set of practices that makes makes the mind reach a meditative state by doing asanas, pranayama and mudras. At the last practices the body is motionless, and it's only there you can reach the really deep stages (in my opinion and experience of course ..)

On thing that I have also learned is that meditation is not

an "easy" thing (for most people). It takes many years of dedication and work to learn and do it well.

I think for example that it is way harder to become good at

meditation, than it is to become good at running.

The only "meditation like" practice I know of that does not require a total motionless stage is called "antar mauna", were you sort of listen to the surroundings and thoughts. This is not real deep meditation, but I guess a portion of this could be performed while running.

Well anyway ... there are so many "schools" in this field.

I can not prove to anybody what is right or wrong

gypsy wrote:

To be honest i'm struggling to imagine only 4 weeks of intense anaerobic work. My approach is over 12 weeks for this stuff in a full year and 6 in a half year. Was he just talking about a half year program with 4-6 weeks?

Well, his international athletes would do the NZ season then the European one in their best years, so arguably they were not so many months away from their last dose of speed as the Northern hemisphere people. And his hill phase, which preceded it, counts as anaerobic work in my books. So in total, 4-6 weeks hills + 4-6 weeks track = 8-12 weeks of 'anaerobic work'.

Still, i cling to may claim that everywhere else in the natural world can be found this progressive development/growth pattern of phases. And in these cases the first phase is the least intense and the last is the most.

I fully agree.

It's pretty clear that you and Antonio do see methodologies in a Platonic way.

The problem is, I don't think Arthur Lydiard did. I think he was 100% pragmatic, at least when he was actually coaching. He told a distance runner with poor leg speed to sprint every week. He told Nobby that he had been doing too much steady running and needed more anaerobic work. In a nutshell, if you got Lydiard in a room with Renato Canova, Jack Daniels, Al Sal and a bunch of other intelligent non-egomaniac coaches I think they would all get on pretty well, and tend to agree on what's a reasonable plan for a given athlete.

I also think it's quite likely that the execution is more important than the methodology. Many coaches have adopted Patton's maxim that an OK plan executed well beats a perfect plan poorly executed.

DerC, I have the same info as you on Harbig. I did note from the same info that in Winter on Sundays he ran 2 - 3 hours in the Woods at varied paces. I had not really looked at that before. Interesting stuff !!!.

I guess the practical question is how "pure" this base period has to be to count as "Lydiard". So we allow some sprint training, because Lydiard recommended it in interviews and books; but anyone doing intervals once a week is "no longer Lydiard"? How about fartlek?

If you read the Steve Cram article here on page 6-7, you will see a 22 week base period with NO formal interval training at all - just 2 runs a day, some in a pack with good runners, done by feel, and some XC races. I would say that this is 'essential Lydiard', wouldn't you?

That's a problem for you and Gypsy, but it isn't for me. In the UK we have many days that are mostly cloudy with a bit of sun, or mostly sunny with a bit of cloud, or somewhere in between; it's very rarely 100% sunny. Australia and Portugal are different, which is why we like to take vacations there.

By the same token, I think that in modern time you can set a goal of building a really good "aerobic base first" over 5 months, but still use structured tempo runs at HM pace and intervals at 5k or 10k pace as a major tool in this. Imagine a runner like Cram - all steady runs in base period. I think that's Lydiard. Now imagine Ovett, who did similarly but had a long interval session on a Tuesday night in winter (6x1000m or some such). Is that "definitely not Lydiard", or is that "almost Lydiard"? What about a runner who did the 6x1000 once every 2 weeks, or 3 weeks? Where do you draw the line?

I think your definition of Lydiard - "build a big aerobic base, and do it first" - is the best one I have heard. That's a definition that HRE and others, who knew the man, seem to be happy with. But I think that both they and Arthur himself would have allowed a little flexibility.

It's interesting that you dismiss the hills and the compressed anaerobic phase as 'details'. I always thought the hills were as important a part as the mileage. I trained in a group which did a concentrated hill phase in spring for my best couple of years, and it was very clear that something special happened to mind and body in those 4-6 weeks before we stepped on the track.

Good point.

I disagree with your second statement though. I see methodology as the flexible part of the system. It is something else i don't see as flexible at all.

COACHES PRINCIPLESMETHODOLOGYATHLETE SITUATION

The coaching principles are the universal laws we are coming to understand through experiencing the coaching process.

The athlete situation is the whole situation that includes and surrounds the athlete. Their physical qualities, mental qualities, home life situation, societal, cultural and environmental factors.

The methodology are a set of processes that are created when we apply the principles to the athlete situation.

So when you apply the universal laws/principles to any given athlete situation you are effectively defining the methodological process for that individual case. The methodology is the result of applying to principles to the athletes situation. So whilst the principles are standardised across all athletes situations, the individual athletes situation is totally idiosyncratic, therefore the methodology applied is also going to be somewhat unique.

So i have to argue against that assertion my methodology is Platonian. It is my principles which have that quality.

I agree with this totally.

This is a pretty good point as well. Early in the coaching process with any athlete, the first year or two especially, it is more about their psychology than anything else. Learning consistency, persistence, relaxation, balanced thinking ... all take some time to iron out with the new athlete. In this period all i worry about methodologically is to keep the rhythm steady and to make sure we approach a peak. The actual content isn't the main focus so it can become quite varied.

cheers

COACHES PRINCIPLES........METHODOLOGY..........ATHLETE SITUATION

sorry there are little arrows in there as well pointing in each direction ie left arrow points to coaching principles, right arrow to athlete situation and both arrows are pointing in at methodology.

An example of that final point i made about psychology. I remember in my first year of training i guess i hadn't committed to continuous training in my head. Hadn't even thought about it. If other things came up i wanted to do i went and did them. On one occasion i returned to training after a week away with my mates following our final year exams. I was 17.

So i turn up and my coach asks me who i am, in a joking way. But he gets my attention and then says 'you are leaving bricks out of the wall, it won't be stable this way. The training sessions are the bricks' "DING!" So from that simple statement he gave me the picture we are building a wall and that leaving bricks out leads to a worse situation. After this i trained consistently.

RE:HARBIGDerC, Kim and J.R.That program rings a bell. I remember last time thinking it would be great to see a complete week. Does anyone have such a thing?I'm still unsure of this. Those sessions don't display what seems to be the standard form of Gerschler's interval training.

I don't think anything is actually 'wrong'. Everything we do has a result. If i look at the results as useful or useless rather than good or bad then a different process is created, so i prefer to try and look at things that way.

When you are be talking about meditation it seems as if you are talking about going 'deep', as in trying to go all the way. For me this type of meditation is better without any external stimulus. So no moving, no noises, no other people around; this sort of thing. But this is just the 'going deeper' process and there is the opposite process also of bringing back those deeper states into our conscious every-day mind. And that's the part i think is interesting for runners. To first develop a meditative mind, and then to learn how to keep that mind whilst running. The stading and walking processes are closer to seated meditation than running so they become bridging states.

For me it's all about stillness. So first find stillness. Then keep stillness. And then connect that stillness to everyday reality. I find running is a good way to do this but it wasn't my first method. First was Aikido which is did alongside zazen at the time. Bridging between the two was a constant practise. Fortunately, Aikido is a Zen art and throughout each session you will end up in zazen many times, between bouts of exercise. So there was a pretty direct connection.

You've just brought up some good memories. There is a guy in San Francisco called George Leonard who is an Aikidoist amongst other things, who has written extensively about the process of training from a meditative perspective. Have you ever come across him?

Antonio,

I have another question for you. If you will allow me, because I know that Hadd is not Lydiard, it's a question regarding Hadd's famous Phase 1, and his 2:27 athlete "Joe" who wanted to come back into form, and reach his goal of a 2:25 marathon.

I recall that you had many private and public exchanges with Hadd, and that some of these exchanges expressed disagreement with Lydiard training, so maybe you possess some insight here.

If "aerobic first" represents a stupidity in your opinion:

1) What is the rationale for spending six months of "aerobic first" training with Joe, a proven athlete who was out of form, before moving on to later phases? Is that too long? Hadd finished that series by saying that after six months, they were only half way there.

2) What would you have prescribed for Joe? How long would you have stayed in an "aerobic only", base building phase, if at all, before introducing complexity and non-linear development?

I guess what you are talking about would in the yoga tradition

be called "karma Yoga". That is something one can adopt in daily life. It's sort of about connecting stillness to daily life activities. Being aware ... Here and now ...

Have never heard of George Leonard. I will see if I can find something on the net about him.

All Fred Wilt published was "Parts" of Harbigs Training .. from "Ihr Weg Zum Erfolg", Authored by Toni Nett.

Winter : 3 workouts a week

Sunday morning 90 mins to 21/2 - 3hours forest runs .. alternatly changing speeds fromfast to slow and easy running to Hard running .. Occasionally involved walking in snow for an Hour.

Tuesdays : Gym work

Fridays : typical : 1/28/38 : 1 mile warmup, 3 x 1200 at 3/4 speed, jog 15 minutes between, calisthenics. 2 x 40 m sprints

Hmmm ! Wonder what he would have done with a extra day or so training !!!

I have always felt that 1:46.6 was one of the great runs in 800m History