Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

I found that he isn't readin what skij writes;

zz wrote:

I found that he isn't readin what skij writes;

May I just say how wonderful it is to hear from so many of you. Thank you for your well thought out replies. Even 'zz', who mysteriously refers to skuj as 'skij', had something positive to offer. Thank you! I can assure you that I carefully read each post and give them much deep thought before I respond. Skuj and others have done a wonderful job of keeping this discussion going with their insights. Though we may not agree 100% of the time, it is reassuring to know that we can have these mature discussions. The world is truly a better place because of letsrun. I sincerely mean that. Thank you all for taking the time to read my posts and offer the occasional retort. It is very much appreciated. Best wishes to each and every one of you.

zz wrote:

I found that he isn't readin what skij writes;

can you read?

You know I swear the Professor must talk quickly, almost sing song, but imagine Mr. Rogers imitating Dr. Spock...ha ha ha!

That's how I imagine the Professor.

Ha ha ha!

Well, anyway. Coe-Martin vs Lydiard. Professor: Please list 5 main differences.

Easy:

1) They're spelled differently

2) One guy vs. two guys

3) New Zealander vs. Brit/American

4) Coach only vs. Coach-sire/Ph.D.-scientist

5) Dead vs. alive

Has anyone tried the program like I described above? Just curious, I got an open mind.

Which era was more successful and produced more elite performances for United States runners?

1) Early 1970s through mid-1980s

2) Mid-1980s through mid-1990s

Care to guess which of the methodologies under scrutiny here the U.S. more closely followed in each of these eras? Of course, it wouldn't be a guess; you know the answer. Now if you'll just connect the dots, ...

If you have eyes in your head and a brain in your skull, there can be no question - literally - the question should never even be asked. If you have ever actually run yourself, you'll know the truth from a personal standpoint.

Someone posted some Horwill $h!+ and it was followed by a post saying "maybe if I was on EPO."

Want to take a stab at how accurate that is at the highest levels of the sport?

People like Horwill and Coe set back Western running 20 years. It took the advent of internet message boards and mailing lists to bring the truth about training straight from the runners of the 1970s to the aspiring runners of the present day. That has undone much of what was destroyed by low- to moderate-mileage "running" in those bleak years. American performances (not including the marathon) have now surpassed those of years past (although world rankings have not, since the game has changed due to blood-boosting drugs and due to an enormous influx of talent from North African and East African countries).

High school is where it all starts. The number of sub-4:10 miles and sub-9:00 2-miles among HSers shot up very quickly between 1996 and 2001, almost reaching mid-1970s levels during the next few years (actually surpassing the 1970s depth lists in the mile). If you'd like to try to argue that the internet has made it easier for high schoolers to know how fast everyone is running and where the best competition will be, thus raising the bar (this is a common attribution among T&F fans), go ahead. All that means is that the HSers of the 1970s were even better depth-wise, since they had no internet and they had to run their performances without the benefit of knowing how they stacked up against the rest of the country. Ergo, something they were doing (read: more running) was what made them so good, not the internet. Lydiard was virtually the only way to go, Shorter was big, Rodgers was big, Viren was big. Runner's World catered to serious athletes and not to the recreational "finish a marathon even if it takes 7 hours" crowd. The articles and pamphlets published by RW were informative and contained Lydiard-style training that promoted long, relaxed, enjoyable running as a prelude to "high steady state" training and (later) sharpening. Nothing fancy. Not much numerical data. The Gardner-Purdy computerized schedules were state of the art for determing training speeds. Today there is an overload of information and terminology, some of it useful, most of it horse crap. Somehow, the runners in the 1970s and early 1980s found those key training zones by feel and through patient trial and error. And they ran fast.

In fact, high schoolers in the 1970s did know about the big meets such as Golden West, Arcadia, etc. Word got around what the top performances in the country were. There were such things as newspapers and telephones, you know. And track meets did have announcers then. People in the late 1980s and early 1990s all knew about those meets and the Kinney (now Foot Locker) X-C championships, too. But did knowing about those meets and who would be there help those 80s and 90s guys run any faster? No, no and double no. They were over 10 seconds slower at every point of the 3,200m/2M depth charts than runners in the mid-1970s had been. Why? You guessed it correctly again! They had been led to believe they could run just as well or better by piddling around at 30-60 miles per week, doing some sprints and O2 uptake stuff, lifting weights and generally jumping up and down like a bunch of gymnasts.

We tried that approach, people. It failed miserably. Do not let it happen again, m'kay?

Why is it that Coe-Martinism is seen as a great big set back to running in general? As if their approach was all about "moderate or low mileage" or some kind of laziness, or quick-fixit. THIS IS BS! You make some interesting observations in your post, then put the blame on Coe-Martinism. Shorter and Rogers and others might NOT have been Lydiard followers. There is a decline, there are reasons for this. But imho, you have pointed to the wrong conclusions.

"They had been led to believe they could run just as well or better by piddling around at 30-60 miles per week, doing some sprints and O2 uptake stuff, lifting weights and generally jumping up and down like a bunch of gymnasts."

If that is your view of Coe-martin, then I feel sorry for you. Unfortunately, I have heard this view propogated by others, even national class runners. It's an ignorant view. It would be like me saying that Lydiard is all about 100 miles a week, slowly.

Tonsa reasons why trends went south from 70s to now but man oh man, those people that trained Coe aren't part of those reasons. Sorry bud, but you got it wrong there. The nation didnt swith approach to elite training and neither did Lydyard rule 70s training anyway. Thats a great big myth. The base shrunk in a huge way, and Coe and his coaches didn't shrink it. Jeeez.

Okay, this might be a big generalization, but I think Zuzu might be just pointing out that people saw alternative programs like Coe-Martin, and so they decided to focus less on building a large aerobic base and instead do more intense quality training earlier in the year. Maybe they were looking for a "short-cut." Kids are willing to work hard, but in the 80s and early 90s they just didn't want to spend the time running 100mpw. So busting some 200s and 400s sounded better then doing a 16-20 mile steady state run. Coaches misinterpreted Coe-Martin, they watered it down....took out a lot of the aerobic capacity and anaerobic conditioning (LT) work, and transformed it into just doing more anaerobic capacity work and lifting weights. You must also remember that Peter was probably more passionate about the 800-1500 races....not the 2 mile or the 5k.

They put quality over quantity....and really you need a mixture of both to be the best.

Skuj wrote:

You make some interesting observations in your post, then put the blame on Coe-Martinism.

Where did I mention David Martin? I said, "People like Horwill and Coe ..." This also includes physiologists who drew hasty conclusions from Gary Dudley's 1982 research involving rats running at various percentages of max VO2. I didn't even mention whether I referred to Peter Coe or Seb Coe. So in fairness, just to clear up any confusion about where runners everywhere think both of them stand, try these on for size:

"Training at 3K pace is golden. It eradicates the need for high mileage." - Peter Coe

"I have never run more than seven miles in one run. I believe long slow distance makes long slow runners." - Seb Coe

Whether or not those quotes encapsulate the actual Coe methodology, the message they sent is what was received (and there is no way of misinterpreting it) by the general running population. And that message, wherever it is taken to heart, is absolutely the worst message an aspiring runner could possibly hear.

Windsurfing nation wrote:

Tonsa reasons why trends went south from 70s to now but man oh man, those people that trained Coe aren't part of those reasons. Sorry bud, but you got it wrong there. The nation didnt swith approach to elite training and neither did Lydyard rule 70s training anyway. Thats a great big myth. The base shrunk in a huge way, and Coe and his coaches didn't shrink it. Jeeez.

Spoken like a bloke who was not running in the 1970s (in fact, probably not even alive in the 1970s). The serious runners of that era (and the ones in this one who are smart enough to use their methods) know the sole reason for the ensuing decline in performances - no participation issues, no economic factors, not "tonsa" reasons. Only one.

I predict another slight decline in U.S. running within the next 12 years. There was a brief return to aerobically-based training between 1997 and 2004, but more recently - at the high school level in particular - there has been a new infusion of reliance on individual elements of training at the expense of mileage, and new championship meets have been created, for which high schoolers hammer and taper, eschewing relaxed aerobic running and ignoring long-term development. Those high schoolers and their immediate successors will be in the peaks of their careers in about 10-12 years. Here we are on message boards talking about using gadgetry to monitor precisely-orchestrated sessions which will fine-tune our running to the nth degree. That's great if you're already an aerobic monster, but all the while, the main goal of acquiring general fitness is being ignored by most people because they don't know how to do it.

There are many posters on this and other message boards that can talk a very good game when it comes to knowing about the effects specific workout procedures can have on your circulatory system, skeletal muscles, fat/glycogen metabolism, monocarboxylate transport system, wasa wasa wasa. But I've only seen one or two people who know how to put it all together. When I was 13 years old, a classmate of mine learned a lot about Civil War battles and soldiers. He could tell you many little-known facts about the ammunition used, the river boats in service at the time, the uniforms worn, etc. Had you asked him the right questions, he would have seemed by all accounts a Civil War expert - a whiz kid. But someone asked, "What was the war about?" And he didn't know! Is that kid you? Do you spend a lot of time looking for answers to running questions in books and medical journals but don't know what running is about?

If you think for one instant that there is any special formula by which a "quality over quantity" methodology will bring you to fruition as a runner, that "kid" is you. You have no idea what this sport is about, and I suggest you learn what is about by doing it rather than by researching Ex. Phys. studies, observing runners on treadmills or getting a complete workout schedule from anyone who does either for a living. Those resources can help you with some specifics, but you will never find the total solution there. The answer lies in the trials of miles out on the roads.

"Whether or not those quotes encapsulate the actual Coe methodology, the message they sent is what was received (and there is no way of misinterpreting it) by the general running population. And that message, wherever it is taken to heart, is absolutely the worst message an aspiring runner could possibly hear."

The general running population didn't know about Coe training, or Lydiard for that matter. The decline, which I agree has occurred, cannot be pinned on this training ideology. And I do think that you exaggerate what that ideology is. It is NOT drastically less volume for everyone. The Coe quotes have been isolated and takem waaaaay out of context by you and many others.

This is an interesting thread. I found the comparisons of the two training methods useful. Since we are now apparently focusing on which one is "better" I guess I'll chime in:

It seems to me that the Lydiard method has produced a LONG list of champions in a WIDE range of distances from 800m to marathon. In my own limited experience, I have seen people with excellent natural speed and people with poor natural speed do quite well using this method.

The Coe-Martin method seems to be primarily succesful for a few runners competing in the shorter distances. I could just be ignorant. Can anyone give a LONG list of counter examples of successful distance runners using this approach? My hunch is that the runners who do well on this regimen have more fast twitch muscles (especially the fast oxydative type --forget exactly what it's called). I doubt people with mostly slow twitch muscles would do well.

Asceticist wrote:

What program would you rather follow?

1) The classic Lydiard program of distinct phases, as outlined in Run To The Top,

or

2) The Coe-Martin program, described in Training Distance Runners, of multipace training year round, in accordance with four main physiological zones.

List your reasonings.

I do both. There is no perfect training system, there never can be.

I've promised myself that I'm staying off this thread because I dropped my load at the "Lydiard-Daniels" one. But I'm going to make an exception here and say that was a great post, Zuzu's petals.

Let me guess - you have read about running in the 1970s but never lived it. Having started running in 1968, daily running in 1972, and having logged about 78,000 lifetime miles, many of them alongside sub-9:00 HS 2-milers, sub-1:45 800m runners, sub-3:55 milers and 2:10 marathoners, as well as the recreational crowd and every competitive level in between, I'll help get you up to speed on the way things really were during the 1970s and the 1980s. Heck, I'll even throw in a pitch about the 1990s.

First of all, the "general" running population of the 1970s consisted of serious competitive runners of the original "running boom" (which was no doubt influenced heavily by Dr. Ken Cooper's "Aerobics" in 1968 and fueled by Frank Shorter's gold medal in the 1972 Munich marathon). There were also a few of the fitness joggers that comprise the lion's share of today's "participation boom." I never met a single person involved with competitive running at the time who did not know about Lydiard, his methods, his Olympic athletes, and his influence in the sport from New Zealand to Finland and to the U.S. Even most of the joggers knew about him, just as today's joggers know about Runner's World's recommendations on the most comfortable fanny packs and tastiest post-race snacks. Dr. Cooper, Shorter, Jim Ryun and (later) Bill Rodgers were the "household" running names in America at the time, but the general running population knew all about Lydiard, and virtually all the literature of the era promoted long periods of relaxed base training with weekly long runs, and what was at the time called "high steady state" running (which would now be called "threshold" running or AT or tempo). People ran the roads as often as they ran X-C and track. Most low-key local road races were vastly more competitive than they are today, and national-class or world-class runners would sometimes show up unannounced for these small races in the bigger cities and would occasionally have their hands full with a local guy or two. Running was that competitive among the masses then. I know first hand because I was in many such dinky city races with national-class guys (and I once got outsprinted for the win in the last 200m of a half marathon by none other than Tony Sandoval ... when he had one of his worst days!). Even high schoolers and college runners did these road races regularly. High school performances were at an all-time high in 1976. The U.S. won individual and team titles at the world junior X-C championships from 1974-1977 and went 1-2 (Hulst and Hunt) in 1976. College runners were competing against world record holders and Olympians in NCAA meets, some were Olympians themselves and many went on to world-class status.

Enter the 1980s. While the elite runners (who had grown up during the 1970s running boom and understood how to train) were still running sub-28:00 for 10,000m (Nenow, Bickford, Eyestone, Sandoval, etc.) and scads of 2:10-2:15 marathons (and a few 2:08-2:09 times on p-t-p courses), the high school crowd (beginning circa 1979) had moved toward a "faster must be better" mantra. Coe obviously did not start this, but his assertions that "modern middle distance running is about speed" (another direct quote), as well as the other quotes mentioned above, fed a virtual cult of misuderstanding followers who praised the Emporer's new clothes of high intensity. The biggest problem was the non-runners in the white lab coats determining (in true "forget what we told you several years ago; this time we've really got it right" fashion) that max VO2 could be improved to its ceiling by running 35-40 miles per week. The next generation of runners, already overestimating the importance of max VO2 in predicting performance, was happy to hear that they could be back at the arcade playing Asteroids and Pac-Man after a 30-minute track workout. Virtually every piece of literature of the mid-1980s announced that the trend in training was toward lower mileage and higher intensity. Performances on the depth charts plummeted, first among the high school ranks and then among U.S. elites. Runners who had burned out from high intensity and mediocre performances in youth had little reason to stay in the sport, and the elite ranks thinned.

Then came the 1990s. This decade saw the explosion of growth hormone and recombinant erythropoietin. East Africans began to dominate the sport (not sure if there's any connection to the drugs). Dieter Baumann beat a horde of them in Barcelona to win the 5,000m gold medal, but the long track races would soon become Ethiopia vs. Kenya (and, later, Kenyan defectors), while the middle distances saw more North Africans and a smattering of Euros challenging the mighty Kenyans. Kenyans also began making a laughingstock of American road races. Americans struggled mightily. Steve Spence's WC bronze in the marathon briefly sustained hopes for a comeback, as did Mark Plaatjes (via S. Africa) winning the 1993 WC gold for the U.S. But by the middle of the decade, only Todd Williams and Bob Kennedy were mixing it up with the world's best on the track and in X-C. Admittedly, Kennedy was a low mileage runner in high school and only a moderate mileage runner in college, but he blossomed when he moved to the 100-140 mpw range, running 12:58 twice the following year and briefly leading the Olympic final in Atlanta. Williams also logged up to 120 mpw when he was gamely gutting it out with the Africans in 1992-1995, while Jerry Lawson and David Morris were doing likewise when they popped 2:09 marathon ARs. The only world ranked or world listed male Americans of the 1990s were those who did what? That's right - the same training mileage that their predecessors did 10-20 years earlier to become world class themselves. But in the 1970s and early 1980s, there were many more of them.

See above. You obviously were not involved with the sport in America during both decades. I was involved alongside the runners themselves at every level from junior high school to elite, and everyone else who was likewise involved will give you the same answer. Lower mileage during the mid-1980s and beyond was the norm and was the sole reason for the decline in performances. This is absolutely unarguable to anyone who was a serious runner during both decades.

"Think" is the key word there. The ideology is unquestionably one favoring intensity. While the exclusion of volume is not specifically encouraged, it is stated very explicitly that such volume is not required to produce maximum performances. This line of thinking is simply DFW.

Re-read those quotes and explain how they can possibly be taken "out of context." What "context"? Again, "It eradicates the need for high mileage" and "... long slow distance makes long slow runners." Isolated, maybe. But this is what people heard or read. No grey areas there. No room for interpretation. The message is the context and it could not possibly be any more straightforward.