Lydiard Imitations

It all looks the same to me...a runner builds up gradaully, then runs a few races to se how things are progressing, then builds up more specifically, then races with aims for a particular time...then recovers, then steps on to the track for pacing, sharpening & peaking.

Hills are essential for developing strength, something than cannot be overlooked..these can be included most of the year around..

Just thought I'd add to this thread....

Victoria, B.C., Canada, Runner wrote:

It all looks the same to me...a runner builds up gradaully, then runs a few races to se how things are progressing, then builds up more specifically, then races with aims for a particular time...then recovers, then steps on to the track for pacing, sharpening & peaking.

Hills are essential for developing strength, something than cannot be overlooked..these can be included most of the year around..

Just thought I'd add to this thread....

hills aren't as essential as you think - especially if there are none around

That can be a factor...

Running on empty wrote:

Lydiard limitations?

Only if you aren't prepared to run as far and as hard as you feel is comfortable.

Nice. Thanks.

Victoria, B.C., Canada, Runner wrote:

It all looks the same to me...a runner builds up gradaully, then runs a few races to se how things are progressing, then builds up more specifically, then races with aims for a particular time...then recovers, then steps on to the track for pacing, sharpening & peaking.

Hills are essential for developing strength, something than cannot be overlooked..these can be included most of the year around..

Just thought I'd add to this thread....

Such simplicity. I was going to suggest you elaborate but that might be contrary to the whole point.

flatlander wrote:

hills aren't as essential as you think - especially if there are none around

:) - so how to gain the strength if you live in flatlands?

Run stadium steps. But even flat places have small hills, bridges that arch, etc.

HRE wrote:

Run stadium steps. But even flat places have small hills, bridges that arch, etc.

Hi.

Steps. How do we deal with not having enough steps in any one spot? Sure repetitions but this isn't the starting point. Cerutty didn't have long enough hills in Portsea so he used sandhills. It takes longer to climb one but still it seemed well short of what Lydiard did in terms of duration of effort.

gypsy wrote:

So, out from critiquing what i've just said, can you tell me why aerobic conditioning does not come first? For me in 98% of cases it does.

Two main questions.

First question. If for you in 98% of the cases the aerobic conditioning first it works, then in 2% it doesn´t.

Knowing that 2% is 2 runners in one hundred, in what universe your 2% percent is based in how many ? One single case, 2 or 3 in three hundred ? Or you just said 98% as you could said 96% or 94% or 90% or 85% ? Or is the 98% the percent of your creative imagination without factual support ?

gypsy wrote:

don't feel it is good to generalise. Also i don't think it is valuable to talk of Lydiardism and Lydirdists in this way

Second question. Can´t you let us know who are the 2% and what is the reason they shouldn´t apply your aerobic first ? Or your 98% as your 100miles for the 800m runner on the other thread it´s not generalize ?

The main argument to stand up “aerobic first” is a good thing, it´s because “if you do aerobic first then the anaerobic training will be easier and more effective”. This is the argument that is based in “self evident truths” by coaches and runners. This argument doesn´t constitute valid methodology.

Better than I could write, Brent Rushal did write why people that says things as “aerobic first” what is wrong methodology criteria.

By Brent Rushall:

When the coaching knowledge of a sport is based on "self-evident truths", sport participants are threatened with exposure to a preponderance of coaching errors rather than sound practices. When a sport's knowledge is based upon the self-discovery or limited experiences of personal observations of a few, entropy will be rampant. When the leader of a powerful sport organization adheres to the value of belief-based coaching over evidence-based coaching, the sport is in trouble and particularly evidenced by the general slow changes in performance of its participants. In several cases, performances might even worsen rather than improve. The following assertion of a powerful sport leader exemplifies the expanding entropic nature of the sport.

In truth, the fact that a scientist tells me that something "cannot be", says to me only that they have not yet found the proper instrument to examine the case, because endlessly repetitive experience confirming the same results is more significant, (in my limited mind) than all the scientists in the world saying something does not work…

What is readily observed in coaching is that when one has an idea or experience that "sounds good" it is promoted as knowledge. In coaching experience, if something "works" at least once in an important setting, it is likely to be repeated as a "valuable" coaching procedure, despite completely ignoring all the times it does not work with other athletes. That has led to a set of characteristic coaching behaviors that often lead to the following manifestation: If an athlete wins, the coach will take credit and explain the reasons for the success. If an athlete loses, there is an inquisition into what the athlete did wrong to produce the "failed result".

Some clues from physiology exercise that might help you to understand why I don´t think so. As I can´t send you or post the full abstract I post the title subject.

AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SAME TIME , Goforth, H. W., Jacobs, I., & Prusaczyk, W. K. (1994). Simultaneous enhancement of aerobic and anaerobic capacity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(5), Supplement abstract 171.

THEORY BEHIND SPECIFICITY, Stegeman, J. (translated by J. S. Skinner). (1981) Exercise physiology. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers.

FEATURES OF THE SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE, Heusner, W. (no date). Specificity of interval training. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. (p. 13)

SINGLE MEASURES OF SPECIFIC TRAINING NOT SO STRONG IN DISTANCE RUNNERS, Hewson, D. J., & Hopkins, W. G. (1996). Specificity of training and its relation to the performance of distance runners. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 17, 199-204.

TRAINING ADAPTATION OCCURS AT A VARIETY OF RUNNING VELOCITIES Towse, T. F., Percy, C., Hanby, C., & Freedson, P. S. (2002). Specificity of training and the metabolic cost of transport. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(5), Supplement abstract 976.

INTERMITTENT TRAINING IS MORE DEMANDING ON OXYGEN TRANSPORT THAN CONTINUOUS TRAINING - Almuzaini, K. S., Potteiger, J. A., & Green, S. B. (1977). A comparison of continuous and split exercise sessions on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5), Supplement abstract 1112.

SPECIFIC TRAINING IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE Rudroff, T., Bojsen-Moller, J., Poston, B., & Enoka, R. M. (2006). Transient recruitment of motor units is altered in weightlifters during sustained submaximal contractions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38(5), Supplement abstract 2406.

ANAEROBIC TRAINING IS IMPORTANT FOR REDUCING EXERCISE STRESS AND INJURY, Bloomer, R. J., Falvo, M. J., Fry, A. C., Schilling, B. K., Smith, W. A., & Moore, C.A. 2006). Anaerobic exercise does not result in oxidative stress or skeletal muscle injury in trained men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38(5), Supplement abstract 2185.

Hi and welcome back. Sorry about the pressure but i did really want to debate with you. I really like being proven wrong but i will fight hard not to be.

Good question. 2%, 1%, 4% who knows, probably not 4% and more than 1%. Some situation maybe 25% seriously. I haven't been too scientific about it. Maybe a few illustrations will help.

As a preface to these anecdotal examples i have to let you know that through my time in coaching i have probably come into contact with 10,000+ children and coaches for multiple weeks a few thousand of them. You could count probably count upward of 500 i have been exposed to them for multiple years - up to about 7 as a maximum. If i had written down my observances and don't some statistic samples i'm sure many things could be found, but i prefer my analysis to me more 'on the run' so to speak.

Sometimes, especially coaching in rural areas, you come across kids that defy the culture of your own country. Maybe this kid is a remnant from our previous culture of outdoors and farming based life. Regardless, he/she comes along to the Coaching Academy out there that i'm head coach of and you get him to do a simple session. And it seems to have no effect. So the questions begin. What's your background etc etc. You find out he runs for over 2 hours either when he feels like it or when he can't get a ride home from town. A few questions later indicates this kid runs cross country and plays soccer all Winter and does track and Cricket all Summer. He also seems to run about 80km a week and he is 14. So first year what need is there to change anything about his natural habits. Add what he is lacking, technical work, faster paced aerobic work etc. He doesn't need any addition to his aerobic training possibly for 2 years. These athletes are rare but they are also out there. The trick is to find one that hasn't been obsessive compulsive since before puberty.

Then you turn up to a school for a 16 week program. When questioning the distance squad you find 75% of them have just come off a XC season of 4 months. Getting into the gritty details of each athlete you find 25% are distance runners all year round. Including those athletes 50% did the full XC training program. 25% more did half training and some races and the rest did no training and just the races. So out of the mix of all these types (and this is a simplification) some need no long running bar recovery and long runs whilst others will benefit from 6 weeks of aerobic conditioning whilst others need to continune lengthening their aerobic running through to the 4 week peaking cycle at the end of the program.

So in the specific example you find isolated cases at least a couple of times a year. In the School example a lot more cases because we are only dealing with a limited time span. Because of this limited time span we must compromise. So some longer stuff is dropped in favour of more shorter stuff because competition is too close. I think this is the general state of MD world wide today. There is never enough time before the next competition to do things thoroughly, because money has become the overruling factor, so shortcuts are taken. In the short-term there seems to be a gain over this other type of training we are talking about. But i'm a decathlete and short term gains was never my thing and maybe thats because of my coach but i also think it's in my nature. Hence him as a coach and decathlon as the event. I just think it's all short-cutting and not always the good shortcuts.

Those examples above, specifically the first, is who fits that profile. And they only fit into the 2% because they are more aerobically fit than say flexible or they are very weak outside the calves and ankles and hamstrings. Or they have poor posture. Or they arrive to you injured. I guess there are many individual examples. All of them would have the same basic quality that their aerobic fitness has already been developed ahead of the other qualities.

And since balance is my primary principle and re-balancing is the active process in this balance, if aerobic is stronger than anaerobic or strength or whatever, then it is not prioritised first.

The 98% however do require it first. They have been sitting down in classrooms or at computers for 12 hours a day for the last 5 years. Or in their offices. Just imagine - wake up>shower>sit down breakfast> sit down in car to work> sit down at work> sit down at lunch>again at work>sit down drive home> sit down dinner> sit down tv> lie down sleep. THIS is way too common. It is white extreme and shows what this Western Lifestyle can do to us. Arthur said he had nothing for the Kenyans, they already had it sorted out. Lifestyle was what he was talking about wasn't he?

Ok fair enough, the argument is weak and the only way to test it would be a large enough athlete population over a couple of years.

Since i don't know how it is defined could you explain what methodology means to you? My take on it isn't well formed and goes like this - i have my principles and there is the test subject(athlete). As i apply my principles to the athlete the methodology is formed.

Possibly better than you could write in that particular form of expression (organisational-logical), but i bet you have a nice way of expressing it in your own form. This guy Brent is talking from an organisational perspective. He is someone in the 'system' and is talking about problems the system believes it is facing. Problems like like not being able to have a standardised product when it comes to coaches. One year the coach produces three athletes to the National Team and the next all are missing, one injured, one under-performing, the last has lost motivation etc.

This is one of my bugbears. The administrative/bureaucratic systems are systemically wiping out all free thinking in the coaching system. They are working closely with the sports scientists to make this happen. They don't want the idiosyncratic coach because that coach is unpredictable and unreliable at times. I feel that if you start removing the Cerutty's and the Lydiard's from the environment then you won't get any amazing athletes appearing. You will get a production line of good athletes and it will be hard for any of them to be great. Coaching is and always will be an art. You can't apply a system to it because the situations you are dealing with are so incredibly varied. Athletes are individual and unique human beings. This uniqueness means we cannot apply general rules to them. It will always be hit and miss and too many will suffer needlessly. On top of that we have the issue of unforeseen circumstances interrupting the training process. Over the course the process such circumstances will require adjustments in the plan to take place. These adjustments or so specific and so subtle and so individual that they firmly exist in the realm of art and not of science.

So if we can't have a system and we can't have even have a standard methodology what can we have? We can have principles. Define the principles that reside behind the application of the method and the application will be self-evident. The program will write itself. My first is balance. This usually means a disproportionate amount of aerobic running is required. I'm relying on Lydiard for the 100miles. When i get to 150 and start coming back down i should know for sure. (250 are you crazy?). As for most of the rest of what he has said and seems to say i have already experienced for myself now (not the almost total shutdown after glycogen depletion as another example although i can well imagine what is happening within the body at that stage from other related experiences). Sure Lydiard pointed a lot of things out that i had never heard of or considered and maybe wouldn't have for 10 years, however i had my own prior knowledge of certain things that formed before reading him. So i don't feel like i am a clone of Lydiard at all. In fact i'm trying my hardest to be a free thinker and not be overly distracted by other peoples opinions.

This is your evidence apart from Brent above? Ok i'm going to check some of them out but it won't be quickly. I gave up reading those sorts of things a while ago. I come here to letsrun to find out the latest news :)

I may be jumping the gun but i'm in a particular attitude at the moment which makes it difficult to slow momentum.

Are these a bunch of 'short-term' studies which show something like the fact aerobic intervals produce the same or even better change in certain biochemicals or measurements of capacities compared with steady-state running of similar workload?

If it wasn't short-term i would be interested. I will start reading anyway but please interrupt me quickly if what i said above is somewhat correct. It's going to be a little bit of torture for me.

Some of Arthur's hill workouts were prescribed for time, e.g., "20-30 minutes of hills." So yes, smaller hills, or stairs, would require more reps than longer ones would. Lydiard made due with the hills he had available and you'd do the same. In the absolute absence of anything like a hill or a stadium, he suggested doing the bounding and springing over flat ground.

HRE wrote:

Some of Arthur's hill workouts were prescribed for time, e.g., "20-30 minutes of hills." So yes, smaller hills, or stairs, would require more reps than longer ones would. Lydiard made due with the hills he had available and you'd do the same. In the absolute absence of anything like a hill or a stadium, he suggested doing the bounding and springing over flat ground.

Ok great. So he sees bounding as necessary no matter what, just preferable with hills involved. When he says 20-30mins of hills is this perferably continuous uphill or a combination of uphill and returning downhill?

gypsy wrote:

As a preface to these anecdotal examples i have to let you know that through my time in coaching i have probably come into contact with 10,000+ children

I see. You take your conclusion by children training and young people train, some of them they do cricket !

Sorry for posting so often - Antonio 1 post at a time?

Thankfully these were only abstracts. I'm really not sure what they are evidence of as some seem contradictory. One at a time:

AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SAME TIME.

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol11/goforth.htm

All this study is saying that it is possible to train both aerobic and anaerobic together and achieve development in both. It is not able to say anything more than that. It doesn't logically lead to his assumption, there are other tests that would need to be done to show that. One interesting side not on this study is that all subject groups experienced a decrease on Lactate at 180 W. We can make a definite conclusion from this that even long steady running improves the body's ability to deal with lactate.

THEORY BEHIND SPECIFICITY

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol12/stegeman.htm

This is the first of a series of studies on the principle of specificity of training. It finds that training effects are absolutely specific to training activities. Furthermore it says that mixing training components reduces the effects of this specificity.

So it is saying we should isolate our training components and train them separately. I thought you advocated mixing them together? Doesn't this support Lydiard's approach where elements are trained independently?

The problem i have with this study is it lacks an understanding of General Training. Which is the polar opposite of specific training. The Soviets had it as part of their periodisation process for good reason. The size of the budget and sample sizes made sure they found out all the details. (They missed what Lydiard found though) So the Soviets found General Training was a necessary component of a training program. This Author says 'mixed training produces mixed results'. It should be General Training produces general results. He is thinking 'mixed' because he is coming from the scientists perspective where everything has been separated into component parts. So he is mixing these parts together. He is right in the most basic of senses. You should start with an isolated training component. Just after that you don't change to a new you, you add to what has already been developing. It's an addition game until you have finished off the entire sculpture. The lack of perspective on the whole means the author is lost in the details. Forest and trees come to mind.

FEATURES OF THE SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol12/heusner.htm

This one is fully supportive of the specificity of training. Specifically it is looking at motor skills and the neuromuscular underpinning to them. So it talks about technique changes. It shows that changes in technique produce temporary reductions in performance. It also finds that when technique is not changed, over time this leads to a stagnation in performance. Ok but this is no news. It is one of the reasons why technique is played around with outside of competition season. You want to break it up a little and then create some change as early as possible, and you definitely want it solid and repeatable before any serious competitive test is undertaken. So again specificty is being hammered home here. One half of the equation.

SINGLE MEASURES OF SPECIFIC TRAINING NOT SO STRONG IN DISTANCE RUNNERS

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol42/hewson.htm

This one is out of the box. It contradicts your push for specficity and supports generalised training. Aside from that it has a couple of interesting side issues. One because it explains something nicely and the other because i don't know what the hell it means.

The first relates to the the finding that there is a significant relationship between the amount of long running done and performance. The thing i like about this study other than the fact it supports this whole idea of long running, is that it was done over a 6 month period. A long-term study!

The second is i don't know what this means "It was also found that there were weak negative relationships between seasonal mean relative training paces of moderate and hard continuous running."

Why did you choose this study Antonio. It doesn't support your position.

TRAINING ADAPTATION OCCURS AT A VARIETY OF RUNNING VELOCITIES

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol103/towse.htm

This is a strange study you've chosen. It has found that training adaptions can occur broadly across a or solely at one pace, depending on what training is being done. So training that is specific assists specifically and training that is general assists generally. Common sense no?

INTERMITTENT TRAINING IS MORE DEMANDING ON OXYGEN TRANSPORT THAN CONTINUOUS TRAINING

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol41/almuzain.htm

This one deviates from this issue of specificity. it is looking at this idea of singles versus doubles that there is another thread on at the moment. This study finds that doubles produce a greater load on the oxygen transport system than singles. This brings up issues.

For one i have an issue with the parameters of the test. It would be more accurate to test the doubles runners for 40 mins after each run and use the average of that instead of the 20 mins x 2 that is used. Also cycling may show general trends but it's a different sport. A running specific study would be better.

For two what exactly is the oxygen transport system? Is it talking about the whole system? Heart, blood, lungs, muscles, return? I find it hard to believe one form of training can test out all of the different parts of the system equally. Surely that is why we have specificity of training! Long runs specifically develop certain things the other forms of aerobic training don't.

Having said that i am a big fan of doubles. Yet by themselves it's not enough. The longer run/s is/are needed to complement the doubles. I know this is an issue: longer run or not. It is probably sitting as high as the aerobic conditioning first or not issue. It needs its own space.

SPECIFIC TRAINING IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol133/rudroff.htm

This is another specificity study and again it proves specificity is essential. Terry Noakes says training is absolutely specific". I agree. You need to be specific about your training and the more specific you are the more effective the training will be. Any study looking for a specificity effect will find one. Personally i like to be very specific about my General Training as well. The more general the better at the beginning and the most precisely specific at the end, flowing from one to the other progressively.

ANAEROBIC TRAINING IS IMPORTANT FOR REDUCING EXERCISE STRESS AND INJURY

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol133/bloomer.htm

Finally the finale. Not sure if these 2.5 hours have been worth it yet. This study is again a specificity study and simply finds that training for anaerobic activity adapts you to deal with future anaerobic activity.

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

So we find a lot of support for specificity of training, some for longer running and one for generality of training. Plus the singles doubles thing.

What is your conclusion from all of this?

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I see. You take your conclusion by children training and young people train, some of them they do cricket !

Not sure what you are getting at but Cricket isn't part of the story. Examples of children yes, through to late teens. Very large sample sizes. Important in my eraly coaching years to do this. Now less so as i have those experiences to draw on. Anyway, how about something a little more comprehensive than that not so subtle and not so effective jibe. We don't need to get personal do we?