LYDIARD BASE PHASE - CONTRADICTION

Demagogy is a strategy by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes. What qualifies as demagogy has been the subject of debate and ambiguity.

Though this definition emphasizes the use of lying and falsehoods, skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion themselves. Moreover, a demagogue may well believe his or her own arguments.

Lydiard training is not outdate because it’s old in age. It’s because actually we know that some of his methods are wrong or inadequate. For instance, the aerobic system it’s not of quite infinite progression trough training as Lydiard says. Another example it´s the evidence that his season periodisation is wrong because doesn’t respect the training principles of physiology and biology.

It’s an evidence that the exclusivity of continuous runs during the introductory season block over interval runs it’s not as effective as should be if he uses. It proved that the interval training of short bouts with short recovery doesn’t damage the aerobic condition and well done that kind of interval training style is less anaerobic than long intervals with long recovery but most effective than the “best aerobic pace” to promote the aerobic condition during that introductory block of periodisation.

Lydiard training it’s a piece of contradictions and outdate training, and the attempt to get out some of his mistakes that the revisionists name it update to modern physiology but in reality it’s change and do different and opposite to what Lydiard did prescribe.

I trust that Lydiard would not agree with that changes. By the respect that I do to Lydiard I think that the best way to homage him it´s to preserve his training as it is and not

We may agree to what Lydiard said or we don´t. Anyhow it’s not ethic or moral accepted to change or revised something what Lydiard said or wrote when he was not alive no more or without his attorney when he lived. One of two. Or it´s to betray Lydiard or that training changes might be everything but not Lydiard training no more.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes. Lydiard training is old, but it is not the oldest.

We should also forget Paavo Nuurmi, Mihaly Igloi, Emil Zatopek, Percy Cerutty, Waldemar Gerschler, Hans Reindel, and Gosta Holmer, just to name a few others as old, or older.

Interval training, is older than "aerobic" high mileage, and developing your peak, as is fartlek.

This all leaves me to wonder, what should we be doing today, if so many training concepts are past the sell-by date?

Who can take the place of Lydiard today?

From Paavo Nurmi is nothing left, may be that he got a chrono on his hand to control the pace and I guess we do something similar today. Actually we don´t do the flexibility exercises that Nurmi did and we do more miles tha he did. That´s why we don´t name our training Nurmi training.

From Igloi may be we got the double or triple daily sessions, the short intervals with active recovery. But we don’t do so many intervals as he did prescribe and we do more continuous runs that he did. That´s why we don’t name it Igloi despite we might do something similar to what Igloi did.

From Emil Zatopec “the human locomotive” we got the volume training and he teach us that it’s not necessary to be one super talent – that he wasn’t at all – or his records would be broke in few years after that he did it, therefore is success comes from incorporate volume training done by intervals. But I don’t see no one do 40k a day done in 400m intervals. That´s why we don’t see no one say that he does Emil Zatopec training.

From Percy Cerutty, the will to win and the irreverence of the personality, to add some ethic and philosophy with the training method.

From Gersheler and Reindell we got the systematization and interest of interval training done with accuracy. I see many people say I do interval training, but I don´t see no one say I do Gersheler training.

From Costa Holmer and Costa Hollander we got the intermittent training – the fartlek - as well as the hill training - all done in the nature. But I see people say I do fartlek, I don’t see that they say I do Holmer training.

From all this guys we learn quite a lot. I don´t see no one name his training Nurmi training, Igloi training, Zatopec training, Gersheler training whatever.

The modern training is a mix of several training schools from several individuals, all incorporate in a compact package. Then every modern training doesn’t take the name of his author. The training peculiarity or the training in what is unique, isn’t done in solo, it’s mixed with other aspects take from other training – each training it’s an uniqueness.

Only Lydiard training it’s the one old training authour dead that I know some folks do insist in name Lydiard training. Ther´s no such thing as Lydiard training with new interpretation if it´s changed or interpret by someone else that not Lydiard. Lydiard training was the training that Lydiard did when he was alive and nothing else.

Tollific.

I would like to know more about the evidence, and what we actually know. What did we learn in the last 50 years about training that Lydiard didn't know?You claim that aerobic development is not infinite, then propose a superior technique that purports to promote the aerobic condition better, more effectively. Lydiard already thought it was infinite, yet with short fast intervals, you can achieve even more than Lydiard's infinity. So was Lydiard wrong, or not right enough?What are these training principles of physiology and biology unrespected by Lydiard seasonal periodization? Lydiard did not impose a certain period, but can adapt to the constraints of the racing schedule itself. Lydiard himself proposed many ways to adapt the training, at all phases, while respecting his principles.With respect to continuous runs versus short, fast intervals, how do you measure "effective"? Can you quantify the penalty if we don't do interval training with "short bouts with short recovery" during base training?Where are the contradictions? All I see is you adding short, fast intervals to base training, and critiquing the periodization. Do you agree, in principle, with everything else? Where can I find a better training example, and updated principles?I guess you didn't read Keith's book. He didn't revise Lydiard's training, but rather updated some of the physiological links (some may say not far enough), and placed it a modern perspective. All the phases are still there, and the periodization, with the same recommendations and constraints. As far as I could tell, Keith remained faithful to every Lydiard training aspect and principle. Perhaps you have a counter-example?

Let me try harder. Nothing like an impossible challenge. The problem is not the answer, but the general obsession with getting the intensity exactly right. We can measure times and distances, heart rates and oxygen, but his answer is in terms of "effort". How do we measure "effort"? It's how hard you try. What scale measures that?7/8 effort is a little less than 8/8 effort. What more do you need to know? According to the tables in his first book, it is, for different race distances:10K: ~20 seconds slower5K: ~15 seconds slower2-miles: ~10 seconds slower1-mile: ~3 seconds slower1/2-mile: ~3 seconds slower440yds: ~2-3 seconds slower220yds: 1 second slower

cabana wrote:

Thanks rekrunner, for.......erm trying. I knew it was an impossible question to answer.

If the millions of distance runners that did improve their performances out of the Lydiard method, thousand of them did best than the Lydiard ones, (I don’t count them, it’s an estimate) but this fact it´s not enough evidence for you that are superior methods than the Lydiard one and the Lydiard one is wrong and outdate in some aspects, and you are blind deaf and dumb to see the evidence, then I must confess that I´m not competent to discuss with you.

Anyhow, in past posts i´ve answer all your last post questions.

You are wrong about Keith. I read the book. I reapeat once again. For me to update the writing of a dead individual it´s to betray.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

I would like to know more about the evidence, and what we actually know. What did we learn in the last 50 years about training that Lydiard didn't know?

You claim that aerobic development is not infinite, then propose a superior technique that purports to promote the aerobic condition better, more effectively. Lydiard already thought it was infinite, yet with short fast intervals, you can achieve even more than Lydiard's infinity. So was Lydiard wrong, or not right enough?

What are these training principles of physiology and biology unrespected by Lydiard seasonal periodization? Lydiard did not impose a certain period, but can adapt to the constraints of the racing schedule itself. Lydiard himself proposed many ways to adapt the training, at all phases, while respecting his principles.

With respect to continuous runs versus short, fast intervals, how do you measure "effective"? Can you quantify the penalty if we don't do interval training with "short bouts with short recovery" during base training?

Where are the contradictions? All I see is you adding short, fast intervals to base training, and critiquing the periodization. Do you agree, in principle, with everything else? Where can I find a better training example, and updated principles?

I guess you didn't read Keith's book. He didn't revise Lydiard's training, but rather updated some of the physiological links (some may say not far enough), and placed it a modern perspective. All the phases are still there, and the periodization, with the same recommendations and constraints. As far as I could tell, Keith remained faithful to every Lydiard training aspect and principle. Perhaps you have a counter-example?

[quote]

Sorry to say this, but you sound like a real retard here.

system of down wrote:

the aerobic system it’s not of quite infinite progression trough training as Lydiard says. Another example it´s the evidence that his season periodisation is wrong because doesn’t respect the training principles of physiology and biology.

It’s an evidence that the exclusivity of continuous runs during the introductory season block over interval runs it’s not as effective as should be if he uses. It proved that the interval training of short bouts with short recovery doesn’t damage the aerobic condition and well done that kind of interval training style is less anaerobic than long intervals with long recovery but most effective than the “best aerobic pace” to promote the aerobic condition during that introductory block of periodisation.

Yes you are right, there is of course a limit to 'aerobic development' in the sense that oxygen uptake has a gentic limit. This is a common misconception among almost most people who have an interest in sports science, whether they are physiologists, athletes or coaches. It's not just Lydiardists who are stuck on this point.

And yes short fast efforts (why do most runners call them intervals, don't they know what that word means) don't limit the development of the aerobic system. This point is also a general paranoia amongst runners and coaches about the dreaded acidosis, which supposedly does all the damage, and again is nonsense. But I think these old myths will be around for a long time.

So, what did Lydiard say that we can agree on?

You've answered all the questions before?

I never ever saw a discussion about Lydiard periodisation violating principles of physiology and biology. That for me was brand new.

I've never seen anyone quantify the advantages of short fast intervals in base training versus continuous runs, or answer what "effective" means in this context (less volume? quicker development? higher development?). Some facts are missing.

I don't doubt Lydiard is not the best, or can be fine tuned, over-hauled, or replaced. But every time I ask who is better, or exactly what is wrong, I'm always disappointed with the quality and/or lack of response, and the lack of logic (or sometimes opposite logic) between the evidence and the conclusions.

If you knew what you were talking about, you could answer the questions.

system of down wrote:

Sorry to say this, but you sound like a real retard here.