Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Do you think some athlete running 400m in 45" can have a prevalence of slow fibres ?

In Africa, when a lyon is hungry, he waits for a gazelle. When the lyon sees a gazelle, he start running very fast for reaching it, in order to hunt it. If, after 400m, the lyon is not able to reach the gazelle, it has to stop, to lie down, and to wait for the next gazelle (may be after 5 hours) after recovering from its effort.

If you are a sprinter (and the lyon is), never you can become a runner of middle and long distance (and the gazelle is).

Now, I ask you some question.

Supposing you put Bolt in a training for long distance, what do you think he can be able to do in 3000m, after 6 months of training ? And what about his 100m ?

If you have a challenge between a middle distance runner with a PB in 3000m of 9', and Bolt, on a distance of 3400m, with the first 3000 in 9'30" and last lap free, aho do you think is the winner : the middle distance runner of Bolt ?

My answer is clear : the middle distance runner. Supposing Bolt able running 3000m in 9'30" (I'm not sure he can do), his lactic level is already so high that he cant run the last 400m under 1'10", and I suppose the middle distance runner can run 65".

Every "animal" needs his own training, according to his physiological and morphological characteristic.

I'm with you that with long run everybody can increase his general resistance. But, when we speak about professional athletes, that have to look for the best results they can reach not in one determined event, but in their best event (so we have difference between an athlete that likes running one distance for fun, and an athlete that NEEDS running his best distance : may be his best distance is not the one he prefers. So, for a top athlete, is not important WHAT YOU LIKE, but WHAT YOU NEED), we always need to consider the balance between how much a type of training can give, and how much can take away.

Of sure I'm not one coach saying that long run reduce the speed. I say that the only training "damageous" is what you don't do. However, in every specialism we have to respect the percentages between specific training and general training. If for a marathon runner full speed can be considered "general efficiency", and there is not big difference if you use or not in training, looking for the final performance (in marathon, of course), for a sprinter long run is not damageous if you do this once every 2 weeks at regeneration speed for 40' only. Instead, when you speak about "Lydiard system", you speak about a type of training where the long run is the base for every specific development. When we speak about athletes having a prevalence of FT, this is ALWAYS a big methodological mistake.

This is the point : how we can define SPECIFIC endurance ?

For a marathon runner able to run at 3'per km (2:06:36), every long run inside 3' and 3'20" has a SPECIFIC impact. The long run inside 3'20" and 3'40" has a SPECIAL impact (it means is the support for the SPECIFIC). Every other speed is in the field of REGENERATION : under the organic point of view, it's useless, also if we continue to use for other reasons (adaptation of the body structure to the distance, adaptation of the mind).

SPECIFIC is everything inside 90 and 100% of the race pace.

SPECIAL is everything inside 75 and 90% of the race pace.

RIGENERATION every speed slower than 75%.

But this, that is true for a marathon runner, is not true for a middle distance running.

This type of athlete has little lactic power (may be not able to reach 8 mml after 600m at his fastest speed), and a "ratio" between his An Threshold (we can see his best time in HM) and his marathon pace of about 5% (example : 95% of 60'in HM is 63' x 2 = 2:06').

If we speak of a runner for 3'30" in 1500m, he needs to have completely different characteristics. He needs to have a lactic power of 16/18 mml if type fast, of 14/16 if type resistant. His VO2 max is higher than the VO2 max of the marathon runner. We are not interested in a very high An Threshold, but in a very high MAX LASS (maximum lactate steady state). HIS SPECIFIC THRESHOLD IS TO BE ABLE TO STAY FOR 15' BETWEEN 10 and 12 mml, for example, without peaking to early.

The question is : which connection can we have between slow basic run at level of 2-3 mml, and this type of SPECIFIC THRESHOLD ?

You speak about Steve Scott, for example. I don't know how long was the run of Steve, but I know that you can't compare his activity with the activity of Peter Snell. How many competitions Steve Scott as able to do in his best seasons ? If I well remember, he was one of the athletes producing more quantity of results during his seasons, and at the beginning of the seasons never was able running too fast. So, his shape came using frequent competitions (quality) and reducing mileage, step by step, during the season.

Don't think O don't believe in mileage. I have athletes running 140 miles per week, and are specialists of 5000m. But this only for a short part of their career. When they already built their "aerobic house", I use a higher percentage of intensity (never going under 80% of their specific speed) and, of course, I reduce their mileage.

I repeat : the secret is to increase ALWAYS the volume of SPECIFIC TRAINING. So, during the development of a full career, if we start with 85% of general mileage, good for building up capillarization and different kinds of adaptation, and only 15% of specific mileage, after 5-6 years we have no more than 50% of general and 50% of specific, and at the end of a long career (something that for example Peter Snell or Herb Elliot didn't have, but John Walker had) we reduce the general to 30%, enhancing the specific to 70%.

This was, for example, what I did with Shaheen. He started with me with very little mileage (less than 60 miles per week) in 2001, we went till average of 120 in 2004 (in winter, of course), and again we reduce to 100 in 2005 and 90 in 2006. However, we continued to increase the SPECIFIC LONG RUN in some single session, till 37 km in 2:01 in 2005 (not in winter, but in July, before winning WCh). So, what we cut was the long slow run, because didn't have any organical function, but on the other side was a way for stressing the body for nothing (tendon and joints).

We have to distinguish between HIGH AEROBIC RUNNERS and HIGH ANAEROBIC RUNNERS. It's clear than we can have advantages in enhancing the volume of training in the first case, not always in the second case.

Thankyou Renato, Excellent information. You have answered some questions have been wondering about for some of my younger athletes and the approach I have taken with them. They have good explosive power (Can grab a Basketball ring on a two step run up at 14 years of age).

I also take on Board your Regeneration V Special V Specific. Thanks again.

Thankyou Renato, Excellent information. You have answered some questions have been wondering about for some of my younger athletes and the approach I have taken with them. They have good explosive power (Can grab a Basketball ring on a two step run up at 14 years of age).

I also take on Board your Regeneration V Special V Specific. Thanks again.

I went to see the very interesting website of bob hodge.

Here there are the competitions of Steve Scott during the Winter 1982 :

Jan, 11 : 2 Miles (Adelaide) 1st in 8:36.2

Jan, 14 : Mile (Melbourne) 1st in 3:55.91

Jan, 18 : Mile (Sydney) 1st in 3:58.8

Jan, 23 : 1500m (Christchurch) 1st in 3:37.8

Jan, 26 : 1000m (Hamilton) 4th in 2:20.1

Jan, 30 : Mile (Auckland) 1st in 3:54.8

Feb, 2 : Mile (Los Angeles) 4th in 3:58.0 (indoor)

Feb, 12 : Mile (New York) 1st in 3:55.3 (indoor)

Feb, 13 : Mile (Ottawa) 1st in 4:00.3 (indoor)

Feb, 19 : Mile (S. Diego) 4th in 3:55.0 (indoor)

Feb, 20 : Mile 2nd in 4:00.2 (indoor)

Feb, 26 : Mile 5th in 4:03.0 (indoor)

This means 12 competitions in 46 days, travelling a lot in different Countries.

It doesn't seem exactly something according to the Lydiard system.

In my opinion, Lydiard was a coach very much able to manage directly the athletes with his sensibility and his feeling with the real situations, but of course the interpretation of his training phylosophy is many times too much limited.

Look what in this thread somebody wrote about my phylosophy. For somebody I'm a follower of Lydiard, for somebody else I'm the example that the Lydiard system is outdated.

Instead, because we have to learn from every situation, and after learning we can have more knowledge in order to manage different aspects of training (connected with the differences in the lives of the athletes, their culture, the ambience where they live, etc...), we cant be FOR Lydiard or AGAINST Lydiard. Lydiard himself, of course without going against his phylosophy, changed completely the training of John Walker before and after his surgeries in his tendons. And, using different approaches, John ran at distance of 8-10 years (I don't remember exactly) the same time in the Mile : 3:49.4 (WR) and 3:49.56 (forgive me if I write something not completely exact, but I need to use ny memory only, as at the moment I'm in Kenya without any book of my collection...).

So, I ask to Lydiard fans to accept the idea that what he wrotes in his books must be updated. And I ask to whom is against Lydiard to accept the fact that he was the one giving the base of modern training.

I'm sure that Arthur himself, if still alive, could go for updating his method, maintaining the same training phylosophy.

Renato ; This is the best statement made here so far.

I am lucky I was one who got to know Arthur and I said a week ago

" I feel if Arthur had been 25 years younger you would have seen further development to what is been argued here".

Just a correction ; Arch Jelley Coached John Walker BUT he and Arthur were in the same club for many years and knew each other well. Arch is now in his 80's and still Coaching. Just a week or so ago one of his young charges ran a 3:40 1500m.

A kid who he has been developing over the last 5 years.

In addition : you are right : Arch had to change John Walker's training because of leg problems. He ran 3:49.08 on different training to the 3:49.4.

If you are in Kenya you know of the young Kiwi athletes : the Robertson Twins. They trained under Don Willoughby here in NZ before going to Kenya. Don was an "old" Lydiard athlete, before moving into Coaching. Now in his 70's,his latest young athlete is Aaron Pulford who placed 5th in last years World junior Champs over 10km.

Cheers

Renato Canova wrote:

I'm sure that Arthur himself, if still alive, could go for updating his method, maintaining the same training phylosophy.

Something that willn´t happen, then an impossible task irreal proposal.

The problem is that the Lydiard disciple refuses the update without Lydiard presence.

C'mon Kadaffi.

One of the greats has come on here and has made a sensible comment. One of the "Lydiardites" has already made a relevant statement along the lines of what Renato has said .. and he knew Arthur as I did.

Why is that a problem for anyone but them?

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

The problem is that the Lydiard disciple refuses the update without Lydiard presence.

Hodgie-san wrote:

What specific has changed since Lydiard 1960?

I have been watching this with equal parts interest, amusement and frustration. It reminds me of philosophy lectures in college. To some people here, including Khadaffi, a 'methodology' (like 'Lydiardism', if such exists) is a Platonic ideal, something which really exists and can be defined clearly, criticised and pulled apart and compared with others. To others, myself included, it's just an average or generalisation - maybe more like a 'fashion'.

For a middle distance type who grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, then took a long break, I think that 'what has changed' is fairly interesting. Here are a couple of changes in 'fashion' I have noticed. Do you agree and does anyone want to add any more?

#1. Race pace all year

Since the 1980s there is has been a good chance that a runner will be doing some work at or near race pace all year round. (although it's not universal - Coe did, Cram and Ovett didn't)

Thus, in base period, a 1500 runner might have some easy sessions building up the number of 150s or 200s with short rests, or doing shorter hills (Coe like to go from 10x100 up to 30-40x100), or diagonals on football pitches, or shorter bursts at 1500 effort during fartleks or park sessions. There is a little bit of emphasis on running relaxed at race pace all through the year.

They will then progress to more classic interval training as season approaches (e.g. the archetypal 10x400), and sessions which simulate aspects of racing in the season.

I see this everywhere, from the 3-4 squads I trained with in the 1980s and early 90s, to my club now, to Jack Daniels books, where he advocates some shorter faster running before the hard 5k work. Obviously if dealing with 5k and 10k runners it's less obvious because their long reps and roadw work can be race-specific.

2. Pure speed is back

One thing which is very interesting, that wasn't part of UK middle distance culture in my youth (although I am sure someone did it), is the habit of training top end speed all year: Renato's short hill sprints etc. Now to be completely fair to Arthur Lydiard, he EXPLICITLY said runners should train with sprinters once a week all year round; and if you go back even further, to Buddy Edelen's schedules in Noakes' book, we see a marathon runner doing 100m sprints regularly. So, this was around in Lydiard's day, kind of dropped out of fashion for a while, and is now back.

3. Mileage : up, then down, now in the middle

From a 1500 viewpoint, miles were popular for Lydiard (100), out for a while (60mpw in the 80s/90s) and now back in (with 75-85 the most usual recommendation). More importantly there seems to be a bit more general knowledge about how to build up mileage - i.e. you can't build it up while doing a ton of quality at the same time.

Any more concrete 'changes in fashion' people want to nominate?

Barbara Ann wrote:

C'mon Kadaffi.

One of the greats has come on here and has made a sensible comment. One of the "Lydiardites" has already made a relevant statement along the lines of what Renato has said .. and he knew Arthur as I did.

What you suggest ? That I would get in surrender and say many “thanks mr..” several times ?

Finally what´s your own opinion about long runs, specific training, training individualization, season periodization, about the need of specific strength endurance for each event discipline ? I don´t remember what is the post you debate this items ?

For me no one is immaculate. I don’t follow the line of obedience. I´m a free spirit.

I keep on my own opinion. Lydiard is outdate. Of course there’s nothing absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

Besides what´s “one of the greats" ?. If you want, I´m also one of the greats. For me every human being is the same somehow, deserves the same respect be a genious, Nobel prize or just one poor human being. Do you consider yourself as not being one of the greats ? If so, i´m sorry for you.

All that the Lydiard adept wants about is to immaculate some people, is to take few parts of the whole speech, to renew the Lydiard interest. Might be that he writes one book about the useless of long run, but if he says something pro-long run, it´s this little part that you will quote.

Some of you, despite you are older than me, don´t get adult mind age. You are like child in obedience and surrender. This is the same reason why you are so surrender to Lydiard.

rekrunner wrote:

Why is that a problem for anyone but them?

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

The problem is that the Lydiard disciple refuses the update without Lydiard presence.

Because they are all depends on Lydiard method absolutely.

Lydiard didn´t teach the Lydiard adept to be independent. To think by his own mind by his own judge. To question about the Master coach. One of the best exercises of the free mind, is not accept what the teacher/master says because he is superior in knowledge supposedly, but question everything.

Truly knowledge comes from understand. The don´t understand, they don´t question, they simply accept. They simply require some food from the “greats”, sometime some key sentence, some words to nourish their mind and be happy and confidents.

Despite what Renato said about his own different training perspective from the Lydiard training, what they get is one or another aspect of detail, one sentence that Renato might agree with Lydiard. I imagine that in the future they will put one Renato´s sentence on a new Lydiard book to show how Renato agrees with Lydiard. I imagine that they are able to quote me as well to justify the Lydiard the perfect training.

rekrunner wrote:

Why is that a problem for anyone but them?

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

The problem is that the Lydiard disciple refuses the update without Lydiard presence.

In one short answer to your question from the methodological training prespective.

That is a problem because they miss the training knowledge to do do.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

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.[/quote][/quote]

How to separate the wheat from the chaff ? It´s the individual study. Personally I have no problem with every kind of discrimination. Of course, other thing is to put things understandable for the public debate.

From this moment of the debate and on it´s hard to continue if the Lydiard adept doesn´t accept that Lydiard is not “perfect”, that Lydiard is not “the best training ”that Lydiard is outdate somehow.

But changing conversation. Since i don´t agree with Renato in 2 items that links with the debate atht we have been

- First. I don´t agree with Renato that it doesn´t training by distance event. Of course that exists one different training model for each distance event and one different distance training approach for each different event. The question for every runner, how to balance (to fit) the DISTANCE EVENT NEED with the TRAINING INDIVIDUALISATION.

- Second. There’s the RESISTANCE factor on every event discipline as well as the SPECIFIC STRENGHT ENDURANCE for each event.

If you show some interest i may continue. Renato is one good guy, but he can´t manipulate the debate, or focus de long debate that we have been done with transversal issues to the main discuss.

The problem with the Lydiard adept, is that despite what Renato or you or me, every other might said, his training of yesterday is equal to today´s training, tomorrow’s training will be exactly the same than today´s training. Meanwhile, they think the same, they do discuss on this board, they defend the Lydiard training, they are venerate to Renato or Nobby or Kim, and impolite with me, but they don´t accept Lydiard training is outdate somehow. Not completely outdate of course, but outdate in some crucial aspects. Or, the second kind of Lydiard adept that thinks that what is necessary is to introduce some “gestalt” “holism” or “intuition” into the Lydiard schedule without question the principles of the Lydiard method from a methodological prespective.

I doubt that a 45 second 400 runner has a prevalence of slow twitch fibres just as I doubt a 2:10 marathoner has a prevalence of fast twitch ones. And obviously you wouldn't train them each in the same way. But we've always known that some people respond better to distance work and others to short, faster work. But if we're trying to be scientific it seems to me that designing someone's training on the basis of presumed internal characteristics isn't all that scientific.

But what I really want to respond to is your comment that when I speak about the "Lydiard system you speak about a type oft raining where the long run is the base for every specific development." It's a very subtle point but I would disagree.

True, the long run was and is a standard part of the Lydiard system but it was not done for its own sake. It was done in the belief that it improved one's ability to run faster for longer times. However, it was and is just one part of the overall system and if it seemed counterproductive you'd modify it or even abandon it altogether.

It's true that you would have had a hard time convincing Arthur that long runs were counterproductive but if you could, he'd change it. To some extent, he did change it in some later schedules. Any decent system has to be adaptable yet for some reason many people seem to think that Lydiard's isn't and that just isn't true.

In your response to Hodgie-san you list a series of races Steve Scott ran and say that isn't something consistent with Lydiard's training. Again, I'd be really interested to know why you say that? His athletes all had stretches of time when they raced frequently.

Any more concrete 'changes in fashion' people want to nominate?

Altitude tent

ice bath

breathe right nose strips

HRM

knee socks

face masks

contraption for carrying water and drinking through a tube.

(reminds me that Virgin wore a straw around his neck for the drinks when he ran Boston, very ingenious. He also promoted gloves with weights built in which I used to run with. seems they went out of fashion.)

I might have tried all of these had they been around back in the day. Of course mostly they are all unecessary.

Not quite what I meant, but....I hope we can all agree that the New Zealand all-black racing vest is a timeless classic ;-)

rekrunner wrote:

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.

How to separate the wheat from the chaff ? It´s the individual study. Personally I have no problem with every kind of discrimination. Of course, other thing is to put things understandable for the public debate.

From this moment of the debate on can´t continue if the Lydiard adept doesn´t accept that Lydiard is not “perfect”, that Lydiard is not “the best training ”that Lydiard is outdate somehow.

But changing of conversation. Since i don´t agree with Renato in 2 items that links with the debate than we have been followed.

- First. I don´t agree with Renato that it doesn´t training by distance event. Of course that exists one different training model for each distance event and one different distance training approach for each different event. The question for every runner, how to balance (to fit) the DISTANCE EVENT NEED with the TRAINING INDIVIDUALISATION.

- Second. There’s the RESISTANCE factor on every event discipline as well as the SPECIFIC STRENGHT ENDURANCE for each event.

If you show some interest i may continue. Renato is one good guy, but he can´t manipulate and subvert the debate, or focus de long debate that we have been done with transversal issues to the main discuss.

As far as I know Renato isn´t the administrator of this Forum. For me he stand on his own opinion as I stand on my own and you stand or your own in the same level of interest. It´s not because one post is signed Renato Canova, or might be it´s signed Peter Snell, that I fell “astralized” by the post contain that I run away from any comment.

The problem with the Lydiard adept, is that despite what Renato or you or me, every other might said, his training of yesterday is equal to today´s training, tomorrow’s training will be exactly the same than today´s training. Meanwhile, they think the same, they do discuss on this board, they defend the Lydiard training, they are venerate to Renato or Nobby or Kim, and impolite with me, but they don´t accept Lydiard training is outdate somehow. Not completely outdate of course, but outdate in some crucial aspects. Or, the second kind of Lydiard adept that thinks that what is necessary is to introduce some “gestalt” “holism” or “intuition” into the Lydiard schedule without question the principles of the Lydiard method from the methodological analysis.

I agree with all that you say. I agree with the volume mileage tendency during the last decades, despite it´s a generalization and I know many exceptions to that your generalization.

But what i´m sensible it´s the fact that the Lydiard adepts aren´t flexible. If the Lydiard conventional training would say something like this: ok, the mileage volume is important because it´s from the mileage (the extensive training process) that we get most of the aerobic condition. But knowing this, be aware of the mileage interest, each case it´s a individual case, each distance event requires different mileage volume, each performance standard requires different training approach”. But they don´t. They are inflexible. They say “if you do the marathon training block you are one Lydiard runner, you train under the Lydiard method, but if you don´t, you are out of the pattern of the Lydiard training. Go out and see what it´s said on the Lydiard foundation what´s Lydiard training and what isn´t. something similar with the long run. One 800m runner might do the long run. This is what is shocking. What is a confined mentality.