Lydiard.....emperors clothes?

Kim:

Keith is writing a book on the Lydiard program as we speak (he beat us to it!) but both Lorraine (Moller) and myself are involved and so is Craig Mottram's coach. He has sent me a draft, or a short version, and it looks REALLY good. I'm supposed to contribute the hill training section--go figure!

Is there a tentative publication date yet?

Kim or Nobby or anyone who knows more than me (OK, everyone).

Given your experience with initially trying to do each long run a bit faster, would you recommend simply leaving the watch at home on the long runs, or perhaps just starting the watch, leaving it behind, then checking total time. Seems too easy to be lured into pushing to beat the last time.

Yes.

Once you know roughly the length of each course (based from time estimation on an easy run), then you can simply run that course sans watch and not stress about trying to hit some sort of specific time.

I started Lydiard-esque training about 4 years ago and have had steady development and no injuries durign that time. The hardest part? slowing down on easy efforts enough to let yourself recover so that your hard efforts can be beneficial to the goal.

I'm supposed to contribute the hill training section--go figure!

Posing for the photos will you be?

I ran on the Nobby hill today and tried hard not to imagine you bounding up the hill, but I failed and there you were in my mind's eye, leaping ahead, uncatchable.

Tom

Nobby sent me some photos of hill work and it was most excellent

Leave the watch home, but don't TRY to do each long run just a bit faster. Just do the long run and let the improvement happen without forcing it.

Pisano:

I was reading your earlier post and thinking... You see, the problem with "number-oriented" or "number-based" is that you really need to analyze what those numbers are based on. A good example; coach Koide had two girls, one had a PR of 2:19 (Takahashi) and the other had a PR of 2:21 (Chiba). Almost equal performance. Takahashi trains further but slower; Chiba trains shorter but faster. Now the concept of training based on marathon pace is out the window. There are individual differences, your day-to-day condition changes; some more than others. Snell ran his one and the only marathon in 2:41 and Waitak 22-miler in around 2:20. But he was never a marathon runner; who are we to say he could have run a marathon faster? Plus Waitak course has a 3-mile long uphill; how would you justify the "pace" over the course like that?

The Lydiard training is "feeling-based". Same thing with intervals; Baillie actually ran faster in the mile when he slowed down with his quarters in training. So how would you draw % or pace + whatever the seconds? Basically the bottom line is; whatever brings the best performance would be the best training. If you can do that by training 20 miles a week at 10-minute-mile pace, so be it (it ain't gonna happen). Who are we to say we've got to train harder and faster? It may seem to be the Emperor's New Clothes but you've GOT to hone yourself so you can actually see it. If you can't, you may be in the wrong game. You might pursue other career where you deal with clear-cut numbers. In coaching/training, you are dealing with HUMAN BEING. You can NEVER settle with clear-cut formula.

On the side note, there has been a major company which tried to make a little computer machine that translate languages (Japanese to English). They never made it. Some words or phrases, yes. But they never made the actual "translator". Because language is alive (and it sometimes attack you too!). Same thing with training.

I agree with HRE. However, one of the 'tricks' the 'old timers' did was put a stop watch in their Mail Boxes as they headed out for their long run. As they arrived home they knew exactly how long the run had taken.

One character did not have a stop watch so used to put an old clock work "ticking" alarm clock in his. You can imagine neighbours walking past the "Ticking" Mail box !!!.

Especially now days !!!

Thanks guys... interesting thread, good stories.

Since I was the gentleman who commented on taking in energy during long runs, I feel the need to respond. There is not an iota of scientific reasoning that supports depriving oneself of carbohydrate intake during training---at worst, there might not be a benefit. I used a poor example that allowed Snell and Dave to side track the discussion.

First, I never stated that you could never finish 2 hour run. My comments were that reducing the training intensity or shortening the training time and thus reducing the training stimulus is not a great idea.

The idea to deplete type I fibers of muscle glycogen to get to type II to make them more oxidative is a common thought. However, you can still do this even when taking in CHO during the run. If taking in CHO allows you to keep the pace for an additional 10 minutes then you are training the type I fibers for an additional 10 minutes and still recruiting those fast twitch over the last segment of the run.

If one runs into a situation where you are energy low and pace slows or time at pace is shorter, then the training stimulus is reduced. Why would you want to reduce training stimulus?

Also, this assumes that type II fibers are not trained at any other time. This is also silly. Tempo runs and interval training recruit type II fibers.

I asked several folks at ACSM in Denver if they could think of a rationale for this practice; these included Bob Murray, Louise Burke, John Hawley, among others. The other comment that was made to support the idea was that if you were going to compete under circumstances of depletion. When does that happen?

There might also be an issue with glucose flow to the brain as a role in fatigue.

Another issue is the time of the long run. For Snell running 20 or 22 miles in 2 hours or so, there is less of an issue. For most of us not running at that pace, I suggest sticking with taking in CHO during training.

I will await any evidence that supports this idea of intentionally depleting glycogen. A woman has had one paper with 9 healthy (not trained) subjects suggesting that training on low muscle glycogen might up regulate mRNA transcription when it comes to protein syntheses. Not convincing and Professor Hawley did an effective job of shooting plenty of holes in the concept.

luv2run wrote:

Also, this assumes that type II fibers are not trained at any other time. This is also silly. Tempo runs and interval training recruit type II fibers.

I take your inital point (although not yet sure whether I agree), but the quote above is unwarranted. Tempo Runs and Interval Training will train type II fibers to burn glycogen whereas the desired training effect when utilising them at the end of long runs is to enhance their capability to burn fat, hence the depleted state.

I'm not sure there was any assumption made. If there was, then it was NOT that "type II fibers are not trained at any other time" but that they are not trained TO BEHAVE THIS WAY at any other time. Again, I am unsure such an assumption was made as they can also be trained to behave this way with long reps just below marathon pace. The "silly" one is perhaps the one not comparing like with like.

I guess we really shouldn't have "assumed" and if that assumption was made, I apologize.

You do have an interesting point; "why reduce training stimulous (here, I'm "assuming" the length and intensity or pace of the run)?" It did come across my mind for a split second. But isn't that what we are doing with high altitude training also? You go up to 7000~9000ft and you greatly reduce the length and pace of the run. Then why do we do it?

Also in regards to your comment about Snell's training; I don't know if I understand why it's not as much of an issue in his case. If you're talking about the case that slower runner taking loooooong time completing 20~22 mile training runs, I don't believe it's a good idea to begin with. I know some marathon training groups have their novice runners go through the last long run of 22 miles, in some cases, 2 weeks before the actual marathon. We are talking about 4~6-hour marathon runners and, yes, they would take MUCH longer than 2-hour to complete that 22-miler. I honestly believe they'd be much better off if they stick to time-base training instead of this "magic" 22 miles. 3 hours would be probably max for the last long run. I would NOT recommend anyone to go beyond that.

I concur with Nobby. I have even gone so far as to have most of my runners, read that as non-elite, but definitely lower mileage types, not run much more than 2:15. I remeber reading in the mid-70s that the training impact of runs over 2 hours is very slight for most runners. That the greatest improvements occur in the 1:45 to 2 hour time frame. (Very similar to what Dr Snell was saying at the Lydiard Foundation kickoff). I have the runners I work with even do two days in that range on some weekends as they build toward the marathon. The runners have had good success with this approach and manage to get through marathons with minimal injuries.

Glenn

Nobby, you are making comparisons that are not on the target.

For one thing, people will train in hypoxia (that is low O2 environment) but the overwhelming evidence is that such training will NOT help in sea level preparation; it only helps if you are living at SL and competing at altitude and cannot get to altitude in time to acclimate reasonably.

People sleep or live in low O2 situations to increase RBC mass (although that is probably not the only factor in improvement performance as the Aussies have shown repeatedly).

Athletes do hyperoxic training mostly athletes living at altitude where getting to lower altitudes is not practical. Athletes living at altitude train on supplemental oxygen to increase the training response. There are numerous scientific papers going back to Roger Bannister himself who published a paper on using supplemental O2 even while training at sea level.

However, there is not a reason to make training "artificially" hard by restrictions unless one is going to compete in those conditions.

As Missourians would say: Show me the evidence to support this. A few quotes from Snell or Martin (as much as I respect the latter) does not cut it. I am going to email them both to ask for their evidence.

As I thought about it more the statement above makes why this thing got started. When Lydiard began training athletes, races did not provide energy drinks or sources so it would have made sense to train without it (not that energy was easily available). However, it is amply available even for elite athletes.

Finally, this idea of not using it during training goes completely against something I bet everyone agrees on: Never do or try something on race day that you have not tried during training.

So if you deprive yourself and then try it during a race you run the risk of it not working or working against you.

BTW, if you do not think that hypoxic tents and such work then you are either ignorant of the science or have your head stuck in the mud.

When you go to altitude, you reduce the absolute pace but not the pace relative to VO2max at altitude--that is the training stimulus. Even in that case, the benefit lies in living at altitude, not necessariyl TRAINING at altiude.

Also, ideally one does not do high intensity work at altitude when living in the ideal paradigm--not that is reasonable.

Tinman where are you ? This thing is heading toward your expertise!

Exactly how do you instruct a beginner/novice on how to increase the duration of the long run in terms of

x-minutes per week for that one effort which will have

2-hours as its' goal? 5 minutes per week? 10?

I am familiar with one individual who heard or read of Barry Magee's on-line coaching program, wherein Mr. Magee

advised that getting to 2-hours could be done within a month or so as long as one run COMFORTABLY. I am taking a wild guess that this would show up as something like:

45 mins 60 mins 75 mins 90 mins 2 hours

over 5 consecutive weeks.

Is that correct?

Guidance requested here.

This whole thread is TERRIFIC.

Guidance requested.