LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Was Lydiard like Van Anken very hard on diet to keep thin was that also part of Lydiard princip to be most skinny possible?

And what is the story of Murray Halberg who ran with one arm? very high figthing spirit I heard. Is it possible to get some inside information on this athlete like what Cabaral tell about Lopes specific. I think it is very interesting to her stories about champions runner who fight difficulties and learn about their attitudes, and Halberg I understand is one of the special in such a case.

"If a mine was to collapse and a whole bunch of people get trapped inside, Halberg would be the one who would climb out. He's a survivor." One of the original runners who trained with Sir. Halberg (he's been knighted) told me. He had a rugby accident when he was 17 and basically he dislocated his left shoulder, ruptured arteries and nerves and all. Blood leaked around his heart and started to clot so doctors had to open his chest to remove all the clotting blood around his heart. They suggested his parents to umputate his left arm but they figured he wouldn't survive so they left it. He did't die (obviously). He was born left-handed so he had to learn everything like writing from scratch. Well, he not only survived but became an Olympic champion. When you see him run, his left arm sort of hang and swing back and forth. I don't know if he's actually swinging it or "it" just swang but it most probably didn't do much to help him sprint, etc. Very determined, yet somewhat quiet and soft-speaking gentleman.

It took Arthur quite some time to convince me to do his lacing. It is, quite frankly, rather confusing when starting out. He used to look down on my feet and just looked at me with a grin and shook his head... I used to have a pain on the top of my foot rather often and I didn't know what was causing it. I had to rearrange my lacing to skip the area (I believe Patti Dillon used to do that) to take off the pressure. Then I finally decided to do his lacing. I never had the pain on the top of my foot since.

With those rings and round shoe lace, it has become even more confusing and difficult to do Lydiard lacing. The very purpose of his lacing, which is to take pressure off the top of your foot, doesn't really work when you have even more material with those round laces, double criss-crossing on the top of your foot. If the shoe does that, I usually cut those rings off and punch holes (even number) and, if necessary, change the round laces and do the Lydiard lacing. In 1999, when one of the shoe companies sponsored his tour, he was talking to the local rep and told him "these shoes had those rings and I could't do my lacing; so Nobby cut all the rings and punched the holes for me." That didn't reflect too good! Thanks, Arthur, for announcing it to the world!

When you have the odd number (on one side) of eyelets, it makes it even more trickly to do the Lydiard lacing. I usually play around to double lace either on the top or the bottom, depending on how it feels, or just punch an extra set of eyelets. If the material is very soft, it could be challenging to do this lacing system but I would encourage to play around (change the order from side to side) and get the most comfortable lacing. Yes, I do swear by it but I also understand that this may not work for all the shoes out in the market.

As I was leaving Barry Magee's last wekk, we took a look at each other's shoes. He showed me all the old Lydiard tests for whether a shoe was ok. He said the first thing Arthur did was bend the toe back toward the laces. That was to test for forefoot flexibility. Then he'd put a hand at the front and a hand under the heel and try to wring it like you would a washcloth. That was to test for mid foot flexibility. Then, Barry said, Arthur liked a bit of cushion under the heel, though not mammoth amounts and not enough to give the shoe a soft ride, Arthur liked a firm ride. So he'd set the shoe down and put his thumbs at the heel on the inside and push down to test for the proper amount of cushion.

Welcome home, HRE.

Lydiard's last shoes, Converse AB series, actually had quite a bit of heel. I don't know if that was his request or the manufacture's request (to follow the trend) but then again, Lydiard himself was more of a heel-striker. I loved his first Converse shoes, Equinox, but unfortunately I thought they were not well "manufactured" (quality issue).

The last time I was with Lydiard was in New York last year. I had a pair of Japanese ASICS racing flats and we talked quite a bit on shoes. The thing with Lydiard is that it should not create side "sway" or "wobble" or whatever you call it. And the higher off you are from the ground (meaning the heel being too thick), the less stable you become and creates this "sway". Manufacturers put bunch of gimmicks like plastic "stabilizer", etc., to counter that which makes the shoe stiff and rigid. Lydiard was all about "letting your feet do the proper functions." That means your feet should be able to flex, so the shoe would have to flex where your feet flex. The tests HRE describes are exactly that.

To Kim's point, I guess Lydiard was not as extreme with "minimalist" (H-Street?) but the shoe should still be flexible. We had a discussion years ago about certain model with rather thick sole but built very flexible. He actually liked that model. I was very proud of myself, knowing how fussy he was with shoes, that one time I asked my parents to send me this particular model that was not available in the US (later it became available) and later I found out that Arthur was getting the same exact model to his runners he was advising. Then I sent his wife a pair of flats from the US and he liked them so much that he asked me to send several pairs (because they weren't available in New Zealand).

By the way, folks, the Legend Race, a 34km footrace around the famous Waiatarua in Auckland, New Zealand, to commemorate Arthur Lydiard, was held last Saturday. I received an e-mail from one of the organizers and he said it "was a great success" and one of our fellow message contributors, Hotlanta Master, finished second overall and the first master. Congratulations. The 1996 Olympian and former athlete's of Lydiard's, Nyla Carrol of New Zealand, won the Lorraine Moller trophy. They had trophies after some of the greatest athletes in history from New Zealand ; Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Barry Magee and others besides Lorraine Moller.

I couldn't be of much help at all this year but I have contacted some elite runners and coaches from Japan and there seem to be enough interest that we may be able to bring a group from Japan. They intend to continue this race annually, commemorating the magical evening in Rome in 1960 (September 2nd) when Snell and Halberg won gold medals within an hour, and also celebrating the accomplishment and contribution of Arthur Lydiard. We hope to include some athletes from the US as well in the future.

Congratulations again to Hotlanta Master and thanks for representing all of us here in the US to be a part of the Legend Race.

Good on ya', Mark.

I had not checked the results of the Memorial run. Good on you Mark.

Another Shoe trick Arthur mentioned was if you liked a pair of shoes the first thing you should do is bend the shoes by grabbing the heel with one hand and the toe with the other then bend the shoe so it is U shaped. If it does not bend easily then don't buy it. As Nobby said "Lydiard was all about "letting your feet do the proper functions." That means your feet should be able to flex, so the shoe would have to flex where your feet flex."

I was out running for an hour and a half on a very hilly course (for Minnesota) in my minimalist shoes (Sortie Magic) today, thinking about what Kim Stevenson said about minimalist shoes. My left thigh was feeling the pounding. I too am quite heavy built and recent lack of running has not helped with my weight either! But then again, I remember Lydiard saying that “good runners are always very light on their feet” meaning that they in most cases have developed very smooth running style that actual physical built sometimes do not matter. Of course, Kim, I’m not saying that you are not a good runner—in fact a friend of mine seems to be very heavy on his feet (you can hear his every step), yet he finished fourth in the Olympic marathon. You can’t argue with that result!

One thing about Arthur Lydiard is that he would give you his recommendation and opinion but he would not necessarily put you in a certain box and say “You do this, or else it’s no good.” He was very much more “free-spirited” you might say. In regards to shoes, I remember one time that he was very critical of certain brand and this young coach, who was wearing that particular brand, said that he’s very comfortable with that pair and he never had any problem or injury. Lydiard said, “Look, if you had no problem with those, stick with them!” If it works with you, why change it? Some people may seriously have a problem running up to 100 miles a week. Lydiard would not tell him or her that it’s no good. Do whatever works for you (within reason) and that would be fine. That is why it took me a while to change my lacing to the Lydiard lacing. He never told me to do it that way (he just shook his head with a grin, sending a message with lots of pressure!).

Everybody is little bit different; Lydiard always said that we are all individual. As for running shoes, he said that some of us are knock-kneed, some of us are bow-legged… Some of us have big thighs, some big calves; some run on their toes (although not strictly technically “on the toes”), some land hard on the heel… If you need heavy padding, fine. If your feet work best in straight-last shoes, fine. The important thing is to understand why Lydiard said “the shoe has to be banana-shape” or “the shoe has to flex on the arch; in both ways” or “you shouldn’t have a thumb-widths at the end of the shoe”, etc. They all make sense to me. For the last comment, some people have complained that the feet swell up a bit while running. Well, again, you don’t want to take it to the point where you lose your toe nails. What he meant is that, even the slowest runner in the world takes off and “kicks” at the end of the foot. That’s why we have plastic “teeth” at the end of the track spike shoes, or have pins close to the edge. If you have almost an inch of “floppy” area at the end of the shoe, you cannot get this “flick”.

There are of course a few “absolute” necessities (like white bread being NO NO): the shoe has to be light and flexible; the shoe has to flex where your feet flexes; and none of the upper material should bite into your feet. Many shoe manufacturers put so much unnecessary materials for cosmetic purpose and, more often than not, they tend to dig into your feet when the shoe flexes (if it flexes at all!). In such case, I’d have no hesitation to take those pieces off by carefully removing the threads and, if necessary, saw it all back up. Just like the late Ron Daws used to do.

I guess I’m going on and on again… How did we start talking about the shoe?

Thanks guys. Greetings from Auckland! Sorry Kim, We haven't had time to get out of the city, but we did spend some quality time with your friend, Bill Baillie. What a guy! I won the Bill Baillie trophy in the race, and he attempted to kiss me while presenting it. I think he is my favorite Kiwi. We have shot about 20 hours of footage and have located a good deal of archival footage and other materials for a project we are working on.

BTW, the race was 35k, not 34k as it said on the website. It was every bit as tough as advertised, with the one continuous hill in the middle that climbs 1200 feet. I know Kim and Nobby know the one. It was great to get over the top and see the little waterfall where Arthur's boys would get a drink. There is a photo of Murray Halberg drinking there in "A Clean Pair of Heels". I was happy just to average under 6:00 pace. Ran a pretty fast last 5k in the 17s to pick up a place.

While here we also met:

Barry Magee (HRE, you need to get that knee fixed)

Ray Puckett (Nobby, he shaved his beard and moved to the country - getting married in December on the same day he turns 70)

Garth Gilmour - Arthur's best friend 7 coauthor, a prince

John Robinson - another of Arthur's boys

Jeff Julian - told us of running 400k weeks

Nyla Carrol - Fun gal

Joelyn Lydiard - Arthur's widow, a mystery

Gary Lydiard - Arthur's son. He gave me something I will treasure

Colin Kay - Cofounder of world's first jogging club and former mayor of Auckland

John Walker - heard of him?

Dick Quax - great guy

Ian Ferguson - 4 time gold medal kayaker

Needless to say, its been great. The Kiwis are very friendly, helpful people, and have great senses of humour. Flying home tomorrow, but can't wait to return to NZ.

Cheers Mates,

Mark

Hotlanta:

I'm glad to hear things went really well. I'm glad you got hooked up with John Robinson--a lesser known Arthur's Boys but he knows what he's talking about. I was on the phone for 2.5 hours with HRE last night, recapping his visit Down-Under (with Kim Stevenson and Barry Magee mostly). We need to do that too!

On Waitak, I recall a short sharp uphill "after" that long stretch of uphill followed by a bit of a "breather" downhill fondly nicknamed "rubber-leg". It seems like a combination of uphill and downhill, the next uphill is a toughie! But now you know what I mean by "100 miles a week in New Zealand is quite a bit different from simply 100 miles a week elsewhere."

I'm also glad Ray's doing well. I owe him just as much as Arthur. Can't imagine him without beard though! Arthur used to say that Ray was "the best conditioned man" when he was competing (knew how to condition himself well). Barry Magee used to say he'd rather run against Abebe Bikila than Ray for the regional champs!

Thanks for your contributions guys. I had a question that put on another thread. But I thought I would post it here as well. Anyone have an opinion on my situation?

I can never decide on what race I want to peak for and just want to run races every other week. I work 60 hours a week and don't have time to do doubles. Will I race well off a schedule like this or will I get slower?

Non race week

Mon 3x1500 or 6x800 plus warmup and cooldown

Tue 90 minute aerobic run

Wed 5k tempo time trial plus warmup and cooldown

Thu 60-90 minute aerobic run

Fri 30-60 minute aerobic run plus 6-10x100 strides

Sat 5k tempo/time trial plus warmup and cooldown

Sun 90-120 minute aerobic run

Race week

Mon 30-60 minute aerobic run plus 6-10x100 sprints

Tue Easy Fartlek run of 45-60 minutes

Wed 1500 time trial plus warmup and cooldown

Thu 40-60 minute aerobic run plus 4-6x100 sprints

Fri 30-40 minute aerobic run

Sat race 3k- half marathon

Sun 90-120 aerobic run

Glad you enjoyed our "big smoke". Next time come into the Country !!!!. Some mean hills down here !!!. The Jack Foster farmland awaits !!

I have to admit Waiatarua does hold a special place in the hearts of us who were bought up with it.

I still have vivid memories of my first one and the congratulations that came from clubmates afterwards. It was a "right of passage".

Bill was/is a real character who has friends all over the world. Great guy to run with too. Made you feel like a million dollars.

I have used that schedule (or modifications of) many times before. It works. you will not get slower.

Just make sure you don't run the 1500's faster than say 5k pace.

As for Time trials. If you are running 15:57 for 5k in a race then Time trial should be 16:30 to 17 mins. Nice even pacing.

All due respect to Kim, I actually have a bit different suggestion. This, however, by no mean, reflects question to the efficacy of such race-week/non-race-week type of schedules.

As HRE pointed out earlier, the important thing to keep in mind is BALANCE. When Lydiard put together these weekly schedules, balance was in his mind. Balance between aerobic type training and anaerobic type training; balance between non-race week (more in volume) and race-week (light in volume); balance between stress and recovery... I assume the schedules you have presented here are pretty much what Kim Stevenson posted earlier in this thread. Without knowing much about your background, you have to understand these balances on your own. Naturally, if you've been training, say, 40 miles a week, these schedules might be too hefty for you. If you're training for shorter races such as a mile or 5k, you might shuffle around the volume and intensity of the schedules. Likewise, if you're training for a half marathon, you might want to have, say, two long runs a week with adequate recoveries in between OR include some solid hill training to strengthen your legs, etc.

My point is; don't just follow some schedule(s) straight from a text book. Consider what you need to develop and what your strengths and weaknesses are, etc. Especially working for 60 hours a week (office work vs. physical labor???), two 90 minutes runs plus 2-hour run on weekend might be a bit taxing. Why not do 2-hour run on weekend and another 90 to 120 minutes run on Wednesday and take one easy day? Just a thought. It pays to check out weekly training pattern of Rob de Castella. His training is very similar to Non Race-week and Race-week but slightly different (I believe he has two long runs on Sunday and Wednesday with one track workout and some hills as well).

We were so close to meeting. We'll have to do it next April.

I envy all the people you met. Barry and I were going to visit Bill and Jeff Julian, but it never quite worked out, but like you, I'm thinking about the soonest possible time I can get back. Theoretically, I could chuck it all and leave tomorrow, but we never really do those things, do we?

Checking out the old inquiry... Lydiard spoke very highly of Dr. Aaken. However, there seem to be a few differences (though I think there are more similarities than differences---please don't start another thread on this topic, though!). One would be the use of hills. I believe Dr. Aaken recommended to keep your weight approximaately 20% below so-called "normal" weight. Perhaps that seems a bit extreme (though it may suit well today!?) and Lydiard never quite expressed any specifics on this matter as well. Sure he would agree that you probably wouldn't perform too well if you carry extra fat but he also said that, particularly in the marathon, if your body fat level is too low (did he say 2%?), you may encounter some difficulty keeping your pace in the latter stage of the marathon because fat metablism is what carries you through the wall.

What he was more concerned with is "extra" fat-free weight. This is the argument on weight training. As most of the readers would know, Lydiard was never fan of weight training. He said that for every kg of fat-free body weight, it would take extra 0.17ml of oxygen to run a meter (I believe this was the formula). So you would not run faster by having it. Bear in mind, this is "extra" weight--your speed (particularly sprinting speed) is depend on muscle mass so you do need some. Here's this critical balance comes in.

Here's a myth actually created by Lydiard himself; was he totally against weight training? Well, actually the answer is NO. His point was that way too many people in search for a short cut spend way too much time in the gym, lifting weight instead of out running; that you should do your homework of running lots of miles to elevate your aerobic base and if you have time and energy to do more, go ahead and do other exercises such as weight training. "Most" of Arthur's original runners didn't do weights (Halberg, for one, with his physical condition probably never lifted weights) but, for example, Bill Baillie was a carpenter and would go up and down carrying bricks or something during the day (Kim can tell you better). Snell was a natural athlete who played tennis and cricket so there must have been plenty of upper-body-strengthening activities involved. In his master's age, Ray Puckett was quite into upperbody strengthening exercises. But they all ran first.

One of the things I noticed about Alan Webb is that his upperbody, particularly shoulders and upper arms, are very well developed. I will not conclude lightly because he's been running very well. But would he be better off without it? I guess we will never know. Did it make him run faster by having it?

jtupper:

I saw your comment in other thread in regards to VO2Max that you've tested a 2:09 marathon runner with VO2Max of 70. Just curious, who is it? And also, in regards to weight and body type question, I'm sure you've had tons of experience with testing various athletes--who would be the "biggest" world class distance runner you've ever tested? I guess "biggest" what I mean is the heaviest in terms of height-weight ratio. Clayton and Clarke were both quite heavy. Deek is quite stocky as well and so was Toshihiko Seko (very thick legs). I'm sure the lighter you are the better but, from your practical experience, is being light that much of an advantage? Just curious...

I'm sure you are aware of the study of Dr. Bengt Soltine (spelling?) and his colleagues on Kenyan runners. This was supposed to be the most extensive study to figure out the secret of Kenyan domination in the long distance events. Their conclusion was that "they have skinny calves." I remember telling this to Dr. Snell and he just laughed and said "Have you seen my calves?" I guess, scientifically, having skinny calves can be an advantage but it will not predict too well either.

I guess I could have posted this message on the other VO2Max thread but I just wanted to keep this thread going. Sorry!

Yes HRE, April indeed! I plan on spending some exta time there, either before or after the BAA marathon, to see you and Tom D.

I'll ring you up.

Cheers mate,

Mark