Lydiard Imitations

Thanks for the lengthy reply, but it really didn't answer my question, and it goes towards some areas of discussion I do not want to be a part of.

I can't comment on how Wetcoast conducted interviews, except that I already noted that his description of you (Igloi with traces of Lydiard upon closer inspection), was not very well followed-up or substantiated or actively linked to anything you said.

I've also seen elsewhere that Hadd said that his "real" training was hard, but some athletes weren't ready for it yet and couldn't handle the load, and needed something like his Phase 1, mainly as a one time thing. Some athletes needed it, but others did not.

I also recognize that Joe's situation was unique, coming off an extended period of no activity, and that because his goal is the marathon, a lot of the Phase 1 workouts could also be described as specific, special, and general, even if only by chance and not by design.

Let me rephrase my question differently. If Joe had come to you, what would your approach be?

1) Would it look like Hadd's, with a six month mileage buildup and aerobic development, before starting the real training?

2) Would it look like Canova described elsewhere, with a brief 2-3 week introductory period, and then a general phase which already includes race pace related and interval workouts and some circuit training (followed by special and specific phases including progressive, extensive, and intensive concepts)?

3) Would it be something in between (e.g. a longer introductory period to build up mileage but less than 6 months)

4) Would it be something else completely.

Please don't answer in 6 parts, with a Hadd level of detail, but just as brief an outline as you can about how different it would be to Hadd's approach, if at all.

You also go to great lengths to point out how shocking and revolutionary your "2 kinds of runners" thread was for Lydiardists, especially given Hadd's participation. At the time, I don't recall being particularly confused about Hadd's role. I think you were the main contributor from a training point of view, while Hadd threw in some physiological stuff about ST and FT fibers, along with threshold stuff and HR graphs. This lead me to do a little research to see for myself -- was Lydiard aware of "2 kinds of runners"? If so, when did he become aware, and how did these different runners get treated under Lydiard?

In his 1962 book (page 82), when he explains how to properly use his time trials to identify and correct weaknesses, he gives an example of what happens to two different kinds of runners: a naturally fast runner, and a stamina runner, when they do the same workout.

In his 1978 book, he gets a little more scientific and mentions "white" and "red" muscle fibers in a couple places (pages 32 and 52).

So "2 kinds of runners" was not unknown or new to Lydiard, by 1962, and neither was FT and ST muscle fibers. But these differences didn't present any kind of special problem, requiring a special solution, for Lydiard. When you read his description of time trials, not only was it "specific", this workout was seen as something self correcting, and changing the direction of future training. It will give racing speed to the stamina runner, and will give stamina to the naturally fast runner. The time-trial might also suggest a weakness in the runner that requires changing the direction of subsequent training. For example, the following week, the fast runner might have to do a longer time trial to improve his stamina, while the stamina runner does a shorter one to get up to speed. These aren't deviations or exceptions from principles or methods, but these kind of weakness identification and adjustments are built-in by design. The "2 kinds of runners" will eventually get "two kinds of training", using the same single approach that identified a weakness, which defines the future training direction.

What is new (or different), is your description of how Lopes and Mamede trained differently from the start, because of these identified differences. I don't want to debate if the FT runners suffered under Lydiard, or if this view was too simplified, but just want to point out that the same workouts under the same approach was seen to automatically correct the different weaknesses in the different runners.

I was reading through that interview and found a few things that might indicate contradictions with Antonio's own method.

So if it is impossible when does he advocate it as the 'only' way? This is quite a large contradiction.

If this 'breakpoint' for aerobic capacity is in the 40s at all then it clearly can be developed beyond the few years that Antonio's system talks about. This is also a direct contradiction regarding one of the foremost reasons put forward against the need for continued aerobic capacity development, that aerobic capacity development is not needed beyond 2-3 years.

And this one which appears to place 'aerobics' as the most important variable. What is meant by 'aerobics' exactly? Is it referring to general aerobic training?

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

These are some quotes from that interview that seem to be contradictory to Antonio's general line of reasoning.

I don´t use to build schedules or advice for imaginary people or the ones i don´t know the runner profile. I don´t know Joe, i didn´t knew him when Jonh did post about him.

I just built my own schedules or my training advice for the one that is´t present to me.

When don´t, my comments are metodologic comments and it´s all.

I don´t relate my training to the Lydiard one or John´s or Lydiard one with mine or John´s.

I never did and i willn´t do. It´s a waist of time since in my opinion Lydiard training is outdated.

However what you say, i guess it´s true about Lydiard. Also Mr. Pete Snell did scientific articles and he discriminates the FT andf ST runners.

But one thing is to know that one runner responds to one workout different than one other eventually (Lydiard), other thing is to prove that different fiber types do need different volume of aerobic training and different LT training as well, as different fast/interval/anaerobic training, all depending of their fiber type. No one that i know did go so far.

Besides Lydiard was an coach expert, a man with expirience, teh man of skill and trial-an-error, it´s normal his observation. he was a coach magician and that skill is not transmit by read his books or study his training, or write about him by the physiology perspective. But Lydiardists... they are just followers and the kind of sorcerers when Lydiard was The Magician man.

The sorcerer (the Lydiardist) try to interfere with the use the formula, the mantra, when the magician (Lydiard) interferes with the use of the creative process.

If Lydiard "the man" did go so far as John did, he willn´t prescribed "aerobic first" as his motto for the aerobic build up phase. he would realise that "aerobic first" it´s a stupidity.

Gipsy

You spend so many time and so much of your effort in the attempt that i reveal something more about my training, because it´s your main goal, apart your ammuse of this board. But give it up. I willn´t say nothing that i said on that interviews, If ther´s something that seems contradictory the reason it´s that they didn´t allow me to justify my training with Lydiard.

I don´t want advertising, i don´t want to go for seminars and do my training presentation, i don´t want do trauining conferences, i don´t want immortality, or that many people people knew my training, i don´t want one Antonio Cabral Foundation, i don´t want to write books, i want that my trainig be forgot when i will die. I don´t want to win the "best coach" title, even if any idiot would consider me the best coach.

Besides, i do agree with John Haad when he said that ther´s no way one training method be followed by other person or many disciples. Totally impossible. and it´s why on the Lydiard training doesn´t exist Lydiard coach disciples, just a few influence and some Lydiardists.

This could have been a good thread if it hadn't been dominated by a few people whose posts are far too long, and really add little to the discussion. EVERYONE knows what Lydiard was about, nothing new is going to be discovered (since he is dead) by wetcoast, gypsy or others who have beome his sycophants. Trying to reduce any and all to Lydiard philosophy (reductionism) isn't helping athletes achieve their utmost - even Lydiard didn't like producing schedules (as has often been claimed) for publication, rather people need to find, as coaches, what works for them and their athletes, not blindly following the precepts of a dead guy.

Gypsy, why all the hate for AC? AC is simply trying to convey the notion that Lydiard isn't the foundation of ALL training, and that those who simply adopt his programs wholesale are actually doing a disservice to themselves as coaches and consequently their athletes, who deserve coaches who can think for themselves as to appropriate training methodologies for any given individual.

That is definitely not all Antonio is doing and there is ample evidence of of that in this thread is there not? He attacks Lydiard without reason and when questioned he refuses to answer. That's 100% refusal for the 19 pages of this thread. He has even done it to rekrunner on this very page. Then he pretends to be other posters to lend strength to his every weakening arguments and he plagiarises other peoples works to further try and justify himself.

On page 1 of this thread AC jumps in with his alternate system. being unaware of him and letsrun and some historic battle between Lydiardists and AC i assume here is someone to debate coaching stuff with. he even agrees to this - on page 1 - yet it never materialised. Even when his own words are quoted back to him to damage his argument he pleads the '5th' and again refuses to answer.

If someone else presents a good argument against linear periodisation then it leads to discussion. When AC argues against it all we get is a dead end. No value at all in this is there?

Oh and i'm no a Lydiardist. I have explained this a few times. I was developed under the Soviet system and this is my primary filter on everything. It just so happens that much of what Lydiard preached is what Matveyev and his successors in the Soviet system preached. Slow down. Take your time. Stop being in such a rush. Build progressively. Attend to your weakenesses first. So i'm not a Lydiardist, i'm just someone finding similarities and differences between all that has been done. I'm the same person i said on the first page - someone who wants to debate training stuff, nothing more.

gypsy,

Don't read too many contradictions into this.

When he says you can't train all training zones, he is saying that the 4:00 miler must give up the easy runs at 8:00 miles, and introduce interval training with faster reps, declaring the faster pace "most crucial", and the easy running "least crucial".

And the second quote looks like a comment about the effects of aging, combined with Lydiard's insistence that "aerobic capacity" development is unlimited. The problem with that belief is mainly the ambiguity surrounding the term "aerobic capacity". Sometimes "aerobic capacity" is used as a broad term to describe all the benefits that come from any kind of "aerobic" training. Sometimes it is used as narrow as describing physiological changes like capillary density. Although some physical changes max out early, it doesn't mean that "aerobic training" stops providing other benefits. Renato says something about increasing intensity and reducing volume, but I don't think it's as early as 2-3 years, unless the athlete already has the right background. Only then, he says it's time to take the next step. I always had in mind that this was something like 5-7 or maybe 10 years (depends on the athlete and what he did before).

The third quote is hard for me to understand. I don't think anyone disputes "aerobics" is an important training variable, whatever that means. The main difference, is that depending on your method, and your event, what constitutes "aerobic" training might change. Aerobic for 1500m may not be the same as for the marathon.

But then again, in these long discussions, I often lose what the context was, and it may be my interpretations are still naive and optimistic.

Although I disagree with the way Cabral goes about putting people dowm, I agree with a lot of what he says.

Everyone is looking for a formula. Runner's World had these in their magazines for years. And the problem with the Lydiardists is they are promoting a formula from the past.

I think everyone uses parts of Lydiard said, but things (and knowledge) change over time.

You become a good coach by reading to get ideas, but not using borrowed ideas unless you fully understand why you are using them. a good coach doesn't copy, but develops. But the main attributes of a good coach is the ability to analyze what works for each athlete, what makes each athlete tick. how each athlete reacts to different types of workouts, and how different runners recovery from workouts differently (one of the most overlooked aspects in my opinion).

Too much,we judge good coaches by whom has had access to talented athles. I got recognition for coaching some fairly talented runners to good times, but my best coaching ever was with a young woman who was running 5:40 for 1500m.

She was willing to do whatever it took to improve. We worked on her strength, her speed, her form, her elasticity. We tried higher volume, longer recoveries, more quality and everything else we could think of. We found a formula that worked for her. Her goal was to someday run sub-five minutes for 1500m.

The day she unleashed a furious kick to run 4:57, we were both very pleased. I worked as hard with her and put more thought and creativity into her workouts than anyone I've ever coached. She was not very talented, but had a lot of intestinal fortitude. I'm still waiting for running magazines to come and ask me how we did it.

People on here are also most interested in the coaches of the top runners. We still talk about coaches who have coached 1 fast runner - trying to analyze what they've done, rather than look at people who have had a lot of success with numerous runners over years - without being in a position to get talented runners.

Here in Canada, Wynn Gymotrowski is known as the best middle distance coach, but is he really? He, as national coach, has access to all the top runners. I' not saying he is a bad coach, but how do we know?

Canada Coach 12 wrote:

Although I disagree with the way Cabral goes about putting people dowm, .....

......Here in Canada, Wynn Gymotrowski is known as the best middle distance coach, but is he really? He, as national coach, has access to all the top runners. I' not saying he is a bad coach, but how do we know?

So, which one is it?

Contradict Yourself Much? wrote:

Canada Coach 12 wrote:

Although I disagree with the way Cabral goes about putting people dowm, .....

......Here in Canada, Wynn Gymotrowski is known as the best middle distance coach, but is he really? He, as national coach, has access to all the top runners. I' not saying he is a bad coach, but how do we know?

So, which one is it?

You need to learn what a putdown is and what a contradiction is. What I said is we have no way of knowing if Wynn is a good coach or not. I have little knowledge of what he does. The fact is that Canadian runners are rewarded financially by getting coached by him. He has all the funding and all the resourses. If there was another great coach in Canada, we would never know, as it is a very uneven playing field. I said nothing critical about the way he coaches.

More real than realest man wrote:

You need to learn what a putdown is and what a contradiction is. What I said is we have no way of knowing if Wynn is a good coach or not. I have little knowledge of what he does. The fact is that Canadian runners are rewarded financially by getting coached by him. He has all the funding and all the resourses. If there was another great coach in Canada, we would never know, as it is a very uneven playing field. I said nothing critical about the way he coaches.

If you are going "skirt around" and implicate like you did, against a NAMED person, AT LEAST HAVE THE BALLS TO USE YOUR REAL FVCKING NAME.

CC 12 i hear you when you talk about systemic coaches. You phrased it diplomatically. It is difficult to know the relative influences of position of power versus coaching quality. But this is everywhere in every country. My own has a history of this as does those countries i've worked in. Interestingly enough, none of those coaches are the ones people know of from history. I'm all for 'a' system but i am against the present system on a number of fronts, not all.Just like i'm not actually against this modern, complex, non-linear, coaching approach and only elements of it. Elements that should not be present but are.Like this progressive process from intensive to extensive. This is an excellent process to use and is a process i reply on in my own methodology for certain effects. I probably just look at it slightly differently to them in its application. The underlying process is still the same.An example for me of intensive to extensive is running posture (and technique). The process goes like this basically.1. Learn an improved standing posture2. Hold this posture whilst running on the spot3. Allow forward momentum to initiate whilst maintaining the improved posture.5. Forward momentum continues and begins to accelerate.6. Pace continues to accelerate to the point where improved posture cannot continue to be maintained. I find this point is most easily expressed as a percentage of maximal effort.7. Complete the session at a pace just under this percentage, allowing pace to continue to drop away if postural losses continue.8 Further sessions develop the extensivity through both pace and duration, as training development allows; always the limiting factor is the point of loss of the improved posture. So this is an intensive to extensive process controlled by a 'technical' or 'form' based factor. I don't use this process outside separate from this factor. It is always the defining factor. In technical events this is the process. The justification behind it is why continue to do things which are technically incorrect. This isn't a luxury a distance runner has unless they are very young, or older and willing to go back to the start and begin again. The second group is quite small i've found. I think Viren was prepared to do this. Bubka didn't have to worry. His coach began him at the correct starting point and didn't allow deviation for a dozen years.Another way i use intensive to extensive is with an up ladder. Eg 100,150,200,250,300. Intention is to keep the improved posture for as long as possible as fatigue comes on. I don't use this until the shorter stuff in the paragraph above has stabilised out to 10x150. By that time in the yearly process we are into pre-competition phase and ready to connect to this type of session.So if this is how i see the intensive to extensive process, how can i go adding fitness factors into the situation before we have made any technical/postural changes. It's simply impossible to introduce, develop and stabilise a technical change if intensity isn't dropped for a period of time. The more time there is in this phase the greater the adjustment to fundamental mechanics that can be made. This complex approach negates this option for me and this option, in my world, is a really large one, on equal footing with the fitness side of the training.

Do we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Do we ignore the underlying principles that Lydiard focused on because we don't like his methodology, a methodology that changes from case to case?

Definitely the idea of the aerobic base is stronger and more wide-spread because of Lydiard. Possibly phrases like train, don't strain are mantra for people. Certainly fits with technical training. You go over that edge into strain and no longer is it possible to mentally control the technical change you are working with. It's a golden rule in technical events training. I see the developmental process of technical events and of fitness qualities as the same, on a fundamental level, so it stands to reason it would be also present with long running. And Lydiard already has a rule for it. My coach didn't use Lydiard's rule though. can't remember how he got that lesson into my head.

This borrowed knowledge idea isn't often thrown around much less explained like you have just done. When i was 24 this local and quite successful coach over the years went over to an IAAF conference. He came back and changed his whole method. My coach pointed this out to me and even back then it seemed the wrong way to go. Perhaps he only ever had borrowed knowledge and nothing of his own.

Are you understating it: :) I have an experience similar and remembering it still brings tears to my eyes.

Antonio,

Curious you thanked me for asking the question, but didn't answer it. Instead you saw it as an invitation and opportunity to bring in an off-topic rant.

I understand if you don't want to confuse your private methods with a methodology discussion. It could expose yourself to criticism, and sidetrack the main debate. Maybe you could form a response that simply comments on Hadd's approach to Joe (similar to treatment of Lydiard). Do you agree with all the elements, and justifications, or do you think he implemented a "stupidity".

I don't know what you want to say about Lydiardists and sorcerers. Seems to me that "interfering with the formula" is often recommended as a way of advancing. But mainly Lydiardists disagree with your reductionism and revisionism of Lydiard. For someone who wants to debate methodology, why do you care if Lydiardists are satisfied with their method?

Sorry "Canada Coach 12", but I have to respectfully disagree with most of what you wrote.

I agree Antonio says some good things, and has some good observations. Unfortunately, it's a like like the "letsrun forum", in that it takes a lot of searching to find the good things.

But I think almost no one is looking for a formula. Many have already found one, and stopped looking, and are going on with the real business of training and racing. "gypsy" in this thread is doing what you said -- trying to get ideas. Most of these threads are people doing exactly that -- looking for ideas, and trying to further their understanding of why what worked worked, and also trying to understand what has been found wrong in older approaches. But you also need to correctly understand the history, and not revise history, to support new ideas.

I don't agree with this idea that all coaches highest priority is to "re-invent the wheel". I agree more with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". A good coach has to figure out how to solve problems as they present themselves. If an FT runner isn't responding, a good coach will see that and try something else. This is the time to look for other ideas.

Congratulations on your "success" with your 1500m girl. Certainly a good coach works with all levels, but I also think it takes an experienced coach to find ways to improve the top runners.

rekrunner wrote:

But I think almost no one is looking for a formula. Many have already found one, and stopped looking, and are going on with the real business of training and racing. "gypsy" in this thread is doing what you said -- trying to get ideas. Most of these threads are people doing exactly that -- looking for ideas, and trying to further their understanding of why what worked worked, and also trying to understand what has been found wrong in older approaches.

I think you are going beyond 'system' now rek, i'm just not so sure about most coaches. I think many are looking for a special system or a magical formula. I guess i was too until i worked out it was a search in vain for something that doesn't exist. Now for me it's further refining the principles and this is where Lydiard and Cerutty and the Matveyev lineage show their importance to me. All are principle based. Have you come across the quote from Cerutty when asked about Elliot's training? Something like "I have no idea what Elliot does for training." Now the naive would hear this and think "what the hell???". But a more experienced coach takes what he says next quite seriously "I'm a maker of men". So it's pretty clear where Cerutty was focused and it wasn't simply designing training programs at this stage.

These two different levels of understand cause a communication problem. Coaches who are only thinking methodologically are unable to understand and appreciate the principle based advice those coaches have to impart. The principles operate from a different level to methodology and it does take a different perspective to observe them. Most coaches are still working with that initial boundary of applying raw methodology to each athlete situation. It seems that over time, with experience, this tends to drift more and more towards becoming an application of principles instead. Would you agree?

I don't mean "most coaches" in general, but the small subset in these threads. No one "here" is looking for formulas, but rather trying to improve understanding.

Rekrunner wrote:

I don't mean "most coaches" in general, but the small subset in these threads. No one "here" is looking for formulas, but rather trying to improve understanding.

Could be quite a small subset but i take your point.

I will try your question challenge for the subject John. What other information do i need to know before starting?

You want to answer the "Joe" question? Here's what you need to know.

A long time ago (2003) Hadd became famous in "letsrun" with a six-part (plus introduction, 3 addendums, and one part broken into two) detailed description of just how important "aerobic" development is. This is the same John Hadd who partnered with Antonio in an exclusive private thread ("2 kinds of runners") where only these two could contribute. Unfortunately, for mysterious reasons, many of the old threads on letsrun have dissappeared, so it's no longer possible to find it here.

But, thanks to the webarchive, I found the original thread here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041214153933/http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=91048

The original "condensed" version by "tara" also dissappeared, but I found a "condensed" version here:

http://my.opera.com/cpr/blog/show.dml/394629

In Joe's case, was "aerobic first" a stupidity?

rekrunner wrote:

In Joe's case, was "aerobic first" a stupidity?

Doesn't look like it in Joe's case. I don't want to read Hadd's explanation before i do mine so what variables do we know about Joe already?