Lydiard for all

I didn't. Yes, De Castella had a different idea about "peaking" for a certain race, preferring instead to be racing fit year-round. Maybe that's one modern improvement.He ran 50 miles/week as a junior, but later his typical week was more like 135 miles (see Runner's World 1983):http://www.juanjosemartinez.com.mx/files/Deek_training_log.pdf"Deek" considered his long runs the most important.Lydiard also deviated from his typical recommended "phases" to meet different requirements, or scheduling constraints. For example, he similarly developed an alternate "race week/non-race week" schedule, which allows an athlete to extend his racing fitness over multiple racing seasons in the year. He also allowed skipping hill and anaerobic phases, and just "racing yourself into shape", if that's all the schedule permitted. There are always real world constraints.Regardless of how to classify De Castella's training, my observation here is that "non-East Africans" don't seem to have benefited all that much in the last 25 years or so, from today's top coaching techniques, whatever they are.

lydiard fan, but wrote:

rekrunner,

clohessy was certainly influenced by lydiard and learnt from him - no denying, but you can't claim decastella's training as Lydiard training - no hill phase, there was anaerboic work throughout the year, no lydiard anaerobic phase.

Another thing, decastella was running 45-50 miles a week at school with Friday's off.

Likewise, just because one or two say something different than the masses, doesn't mean they are right.Maybe you can clearly demonstrate your knowledge by answering my "top 10" question above: what have we learned since 1965, that is both 1) a training improvement, and 2) contradictory to a Lydiard principle?Maybe 10 is too many. How about giving us just the most important top 5, or top 3? "Lydiard lacing" doesn't count.

I think Clohessy was just trying to be nice. :)Thanks for the info an Hall.

HRE wrote:

Clohessey himself characterized DeCastella's training as Lydiard training. After DeCastella's BCGs gold he sent Arthur a note saying something like, "Another triumph for the Lydiard method."

Hall's miles, I vaguely recall reading that Hall was in the 90-100 range in high school but could be wrong. A friend who knows Hall's dad, who was Hall's first coach, says the dad is a believer in the Lydiard method and coached Ryan along those lines in his early years. I also recall posts here during Hall's Stanford years explaining his lack of a spectacular career there as a result of having done too many miles in high school and being near the end of his improvement curve.

You make a good point regarding the non improvement - really - almost no improvement since Clarke.

Lydiard said if he had coached Deek, Deek would have won the 84 marathon - who knows. He suffered from the heat that day.

Yes, he was a big mileage runner - true. When I read he only did the 50 miles per week at school - i think he ran a 3.13 (or similar) 3000 at 17, i was surprised.

rekrunner

I’m not a teacher neither a training student doing one test about training methodology evolution to answer your questions.

On this board and due to so many training ignorance i’m just an opinion maker. Besides to ask to you questions I would need to teach you training history and training methodology and transmit my training practical experience and that will take years instead of one single post as you pretend.

I ask myself what do you pretend when you ask me that kind of questions ? I guess that you don´t want a sincere answer to know my opinion or that i can teach you something you don´t know.

You ask me that questions with a previous fixed idea that Lydiard is what is good and that hardly can be found some kind of training best than the Lydiard one.

On this board you repeatedly did ask questions that after that is answered you taught you know the answers.

You don’t go out of the Lydiard addicted cult of mind. You have an emotional pre-concept that takes Lydiard as the best one, the only one, kind of perfect one.

As long as you think as you do, you will never get answers that will satisfied the need of training progress out of the confined limited and outdate Lydiard method.

I don't want anyone's opinions or unsubstantiated conclusions, just specific facts with substance.

I'm pretending that, if top coaches today all know that Lydiard was so wrong about so many things, it should be effortless to list the contradictions, and say who is doing it differently today, and what they are doing.

If no one answers the question, here and now, what shall I conclude? I am well prepared to accept that Lydiard is "old school", and we've learned so much since then, but how can I get out of the Lydiard cult without any answers about today's modern cults? I need facts, not opinions.

I understand you think you've already answered the question, and you are frustrated because I can not see what you see with your evidence. Over the years, I have seen a few answers concerning periodicity, interval training, physiology, and last but not least, shoe lacing. I think I understand the points, and the value added. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I do not see these answers with the same perspective, magnitude, or gravity, which they were given.

If you will not answer my simple question, how about giving me some recommended reading references? What books, journals, articles, websites, presentations, symposiums, forums, etc. would you recommend I read to learn about the best training techniques today? Preferably in English or in French, if possible, but don't let that limit your recommendations if it's too restrictive.

for every body wrote:

rekrunner

I’m not a teacher neither a training student doing one test about training methodology evolution to answer your questions.

So you acknowledge what I've always suspected, that you really don't know what you're talking about but don't let an absence of any information keep you from going on like you're an expert. Thanks for that.

HRE wrote:

So you acknowledge what I've always suspected, that you really don't know what you're talking about but don't let an absence of any information keep you from going on like you're an expert. Thanks for that.

+1. There you have it. How to shut up Antonio=ask him something very specific about anti-Lydiard and be persistent about it. He can't answer because he hasn't got any. As with HRE, something I've been thinking all along...Antonio is badmouthing Lydiard all this time, shouting "truth" and "facts" and all but when it comes down to it, he can't show ANY of those "facts". He's the ultimate poor loser.

I'm sure he's thinking real hard right now how to come back to rekrunner's specific question with some smart ass comment with zen philosophy and Marxism added onto it except for THE FACT and SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of this so-called "evolved" training technique so far ahead of Lydiard.

I was reading Canova's posts and found it very interesting. But, as rekrunner had already said, I seem pretty much nothing but similarity to Lydiard anyway-you build up good aerobic FOUNDATION first before you move on to SPECIFIC workouts.... They both even use same words though Canova seems to try to create some new terms to differentiate his program to Lyidard but the pattern is almost exactly the same.

I found his comment about EPO very interesting tho. So he claims EPO doesn't work.... How would he know? The only way he can say that is because he actually tried it with his Kenyan runners and didn't really see marked improvement. So has he? That comment is almost as good as him admitting that he used it.

His seemed like a perfectly legitimate question.

Yours (^^) strikes me as mumjo-jumbo.

To be fair and honest, I'm sure that this is not Antonio. Whatever critiques Antonio has said about Lydiard, he also had the ability to argue his positions and bring forth real information from real training experiences to illustrate a point. I think two of Antonio's threads, one about "The history of Intermittent Training", and his detailed descriptions of the different training approaches for Mamede and Lopes in the "2 kinds of runners" thread, are some of the most valuable contributions I've ever seen in this forum. Antonio also gave a history of Portuguese runners, in some kind of study, that concluded that too much "tempo" running too early, produced young runners who did not reach their potential.I never see this quality of contribution, or level of substance, from our anti-Lydiardism expert.I think that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are different persons.

Troll-police wrote:

+1. There you have it. How to shut up Antonio=ask him something very specific about anti-Lydiard and be persistent about it. He can't answer because he hasn't got any. As with HRE, something I've been thinking all along...Antonio is badmouthing Lydiard all this time, shouting "truth" and "facts" and all but when it comes down to it, he can't show ANY of those "facts". He's the ultimate poor loser.

I'm sure he's thinking real hard right now how to come back to rekrunner's specific question with some smart ass comment with zen philosophy and Marxism added onto it except for THE FACT and SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of this so-called "evolved" training technique so far ahead of Lydiard.

Nor is it Skuj. Let's keep him out of this.

I also see some important distinctions, and refinements when reading Canova's detailed philosophies. I just noted that a lot of the Lydiard pieces are still there somewhere, so if Lydiard was wrong about a couple of things, he was still right about quite a few other things.Canova only claimed that blood doping wouldn't work for top athletes. Or if it did, the effects would be much less than for slower athletes. He also said he never actually did the study, and never would -- hinting that one day, some evidence could prove him wrong.

epoman wrote:

I was reading Canova's posts and found it very interesting. But, as rekrunner had already said, I seem pretty much nothing but similarity to Lydiard anyway-you build up good aerobic FOUNDATION first before you move on to SPECIFIC workouts.... They both even use same words though Canova seems to try to create some new terms to differentiate his program to Lyidard but the pattern is almost exactly the same.

I found his comment about EPO very interesting tho. So he claims EPO doesn't work.... How would he know? The only way he can say that is because he actually tried it with his Kenyan runners and didn't really see marked improvement. So has he? That comment is almost as good as him admitting that he used it.

I'm with you about Antonio. He is definitely a student of the sport and training theory.

rekrunner wrote:

To be fair and honest, I'm sure that this is not Antonio. Whatever critiques Antonio has said about Lydiard, he also had the ability to argue his positions and bring forth real information from real training experiences to illustrate a point. I think two of Antonio's threads, one about "The history of Intermittent Training", and his detailed descriptions of the different training approaches for Mamede and Lopes in the "2 kinds of runners" thread, are some of the most valuable contributions I've ever seen in this forum. Antonio also gave a history of Portuguese runners, in some kind of study, that concluded that too much "tempo" running too early, produced young runners who did not reach their potential.

I never see this quality of contribution, or level of substance, from our anti-Lydiardism expert.

I think that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are different persons.

Like I said, I do respect your comment and opinion but what if he CAN draw historical information in detail but really CAN'T argue the validity of Lydiard training in the light of facts and he knows it but he WANTS to? Isn't letsrun the perfect place to do so under multiple different anonymous unidentifiable names? I think that's exactly what he's doing.

Almost as soon as I posted that last comment I wished this was a board where you can withdraw your own post. I'd promised myself that when threads about Lydiard degenerated into posts about the identity of psoters I would stop following the thread or at least ignore the "who's who" posts and just try to deal with running issues. I slipped up here.

That said, I agree with you. It's possible to be intelligent and still be a jerk and I really am not sure who The Man With the Accent is. But if it's not Antonio I think it's unfair to accuse him of being this guy.

There will be about 5 less posts in this thread in a short while....some that probably took at least 20mins to type up.

Enjoy wasting your time!!! :)

Skuj wrote:

There will be about 5 less posts in this thread in a short while....some that probably took at least 20mins to type up.

Enjoy wasting your time!!! :)

It happens with me very often. However how lucky we are on Lets Run Com. The censorship and delete posts is bigger on one Foundation and it´s nopt by chance they ask us to go there and discuss about Trauining there.

How unlucky. Can you recommend any alternatives?

for every body wrote:

It happens with me very often. However how lucky we are on Lets Run Com. The censorship and delete posts is bigger on one Foundation and it´s nopt by chance they ask us to go there and discuss about Trauining there.