Lydiard Training Advice; the Morning Run

I asked for the references, because I know they don't exist.

Lydiard never said aerobic training improvements were infinite. These are your words.

Neither Lydiard, nor any Lydiard adept, (outside Nobby) ever said Lydiard is the perfect training, superior to all others. These are your words.

On the subject of 100 miles per week, I think Don Kardong said it best. Something like...

It's just a nice round number. 88 miles per week is even nicer and rounder - no corners anywhere on those digits.

A few questions Antonio:

1. Why, whenever the subject is Lydiard are you so rude and insulting?

2. Does Lydiard training talk make you angry? If so, why?

3. Do you agree that Lydiard training have produced great times on the track and that, if in these modern times its not the best anymore, it once was revolutionary and will still be a very good method for local good athletes?

4. If Lydiard way of training is not the best, what is? Do you have any links?

broken record much? wrote:

is it possible to have a Lydiard discussion without Antonio coming in and ruining it?

Has that ever happened on this board?

Go away, Antonio, you're repeating the same crap you've spewed a dozen times before!

No one is listening!

+1

Just go away. You ruin completely useful threads.

António Cabral wrote:

For example "why the Lydiard long run is better to the middle distance runs that just mileage and intensity with the miss of the Lydiard regular long runs long runs ?" Why it´s better to isolate one period with just aerobic training in one early build up phase, rather than combine aerobic with anaerobic in the same phase period like Salazar does, or James Li does, Dr. Kostre does, Jack Daniels does, Peter Coe did, Dr. Rosa does, or Renato Canova does, just to name a few ?

I have not read the original editions of Lydiard's books, but I have read recent editions of "running to the top" and "running with lydiard". I thought he explained why long runs are better during base phase. Long runs stimulate capilarization of the running muscles, so that the cells get more efficient at getting nutrients and oxygen from the bloodstream and getting harmful stuff ("toxins") out. That way, when the athlete turns to higher intensity work, the muscles are in a position to recover faster. A lot of high intensity running tires one out over less miles, so there simply is not enough energy to do both. So if one must make the choice to do mostly long running or mostly speed work, the energy is better spent doing the long work until speed is really needed.

This is what I got from reading Lydiard. Am I misunderstanding something here?

That's a pretty good and very general understanding.

I didn't respond to the OP, since there were already good initial responses. But re-reading the original post, I feel it would be helpful to provide a complete response that clarifies the major principles the OP said he "knew":

1) All runs should be done at a steady state pace (NOT TRUE)

2) The ideal peak mileage for base training is 100 mp week (IDEALLY, BUT REALITY CAN VARY WIDELY)

From a 1990 Osaka seminar, a presentation given directly from Lydiard:

"I found that (when) we ran about 160 kilometers (=100 miles) a week in our main training sessions and jogged in the morning, six mornings a week up to an hour(2), the we got the best results."

(2) Footnote from Nobby: These morning jogs are recovery jog at easier effort.

So for Lydiard's "elite" runners, they jogged in the morning, up to 6 hours each week (up to 50+ miles), and this did not count towards 100 miles of "main training".

A typical example of "main training" during the "Aerobic Conditioning" phase (taken from a 1999 Lecture Tour by Arthur Lydiard):

Monday 10 miles (15km) at 1/2 effort over undulating course

Tuesday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat

Wednesday 12 miles (20km) at 1/2 effort over hilly course

Thursday 18 miles (30km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat

Friday 10 miles (15km) at 3/4 effort over flat course

Saturday 22 miles (35km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat

Sunday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over any type terrain

So you can see, all runs are NOT at "steady state" pace, but include a variety of paces, distances, and terrain. 10 miles at 3/4 effort could be called "steady state", but 15 miles at 1/4 effort would be more like marathon pace (or slower).

But this is an example of what Lydiard did with his "boys". Lydiard found that 100mpw was bad advice, for slower or younger runners, and changed the recommendation to time based. From the same seminar:

"Talking about aerobic development, we found that if we work on the time basis rather than mileage basis, we got better results, particularly developing young people."

Here is a similar example, based on time (also taken from the same 1999 Lecture Tour by Arthur Lydiard):

Monday Aerobic running 3/4 to 1 hour

Tuesday Aerobic running 1 to 1.5 hours

Wednesday Run hilly course 1/2 to 1 hour

Thursday Aerobic running 1 to 1.5 hours

Friday Jog 1/2 to 1 hour

Saturday Run hilly course 1/2 to 1 hour

Sunday Aerobic running 1.5 to 2 hours

So regarding the ideal weekly mileage in Lydiard training, the best answer depends on the individual in training. Young runners might run as little as 46 miles per week (or less), at a variety of paces, while national class runners could run as much as 150 miles per week, at a variety of paces.

Is Antonio right about 100mpw? At a first superficial glance, it might seem so, but once you gain a deeper understanding, by reading more than 1 quote out of context, it's easy to see that Antonio draws the wrong conclusions about the relative importance of 100 mpw:

Lydiard recommended to the Japanese, up to 100 mpw main training plus up to 50+ mpw supplementary morning recovery jogs (150+ mpw)

Yet for young undeveloped runners, they can run as little as 5.75 hours per week (46 miles per week at 8 min miles), up to 9 hours per week (77 miles at 7 min miles)

rekrunner wrote:

I asked for the references, because I know they don't exist. I´m not angry. I´m an angel of patience with people that doesn´t deserve my goos will. You know very well what Lydiard said as i know.

Lydiard never said aerobic training improvements were infinite. These are your words.

Neither Lydiard, nor any Lydiard adept, (outside Nobby) ever said Lydiard is the perfect training, superior to all others. These are your words.

Rekrunner. Be serious once for all, and don´t play with words or the meaning of the words.

Infinite = having NO LIMITS or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude (…) unbounded or UNLIMITED.

(capital letters are done by me)

ARTHUR LYDIARD’S LECTURE

(…) We all know that great endurance athletes, their ability to assimilate, transport, and use oxygen is an excess of 7 liters per minute, or 85 milliliters per kilogram per minute. We know that. So if we have a high school athlete with oxygen uptake level of, say, 3 liters per minute, I try to explain to them that this (aerobic development = darker shade) is not a limiting factor, that this can be improved. No one knows what the limits are to the development of the cardiac system in any individual, no one knows this. Years ago, they used to say this was limited. Today we know that it’s UNLIMITED. We don’t know its limits (…)

(capital letters are done by me)

I never said that Lydiard training doesn´t work at all.

Besides any kind of training that isn´t a total absurd as distance training approach enhance the performance probably.

Since that the important one factor, the main one for rich performance isn´t the training method but the talent, the fact that someone does one rich performance doesn´t guarantee that his training method is better than any other. The more of it´s true that a few Lydiard runners did rich performances the number of world class runners that did best performances than the Lydiard ones is higher and exceeds 50 the Lydiard one best performances and best performers. There, by the wrong conclusion that one coach is better or one training method is better that the other ones because the runners of that method did better performances , is something out of any training methodology knowledge.

Therefore the analysis of the Lydiard method or any other based on just the performance result is nor appropriate to define one training method efficiency. We need to go deeply and see if the training method is in agreement with the rich training principles.

Do you feel that my answers is from an angry person ? I don´t think so. I got friends that are in the Lydiardism territory. What I think is that my post participation is out of the mediocre Lydiard mainstream analysis, mostly done here and abroad by people that are impartial in his Lydiard consideration since they are Lydiardists.

The number of my participation in the Lydiard debate is not me that did start it, I didn´t push the trigger, it´s the Lydiard ones that are obsessive in the defense of Lydiard until the zone of irrationalism and absurdity.

I really continue to think ther´s no supremacy, perfectionism or better training in the Lydiard method related to the others. I really think that Lydiard training is the “black beast” of the distance training methods. Not superior or perfect or correct, just one optional kind of training inferior to many others.

That's what Lydiard said, but the doubt is whether this works in a beneficial (or efficient) way for all middle distance runners (800-1500m).Renato Canova explained (some time ago) that the 2 hour long run develops qualities that are too distant from what an 800-1500m runner requires, and for some athletes, the 2 hour run could even be detrimental, as it hinders development of other qualities connected to the 800-1500m. For these runners, there are better ways to develop the aerobic qualities required.So the critique is whether the 2 hour long run is something universally beneficial for all middle and long distance runners.

I used to look at Antonio Cabral's posts with a bit of respect and admiration, but after seeing him derail so many Lydiard threads I can see he's more concerned with pettiness and his own ego than anything else.

No longer a fan. I'll ignore all of his posts from here on out.

I'm dead serious. This is exactly what I wanted you to find (well done!), because it clearly shows you are talking about SOMETHING ELSE that COMES FROM YOU, and not Lydiard. It's not me playing with words, or meanings of words. Putting aside the common word "unlimited", and the non-existing word "infinite", all the rest of the words are completely different, and therefore the meanings and conclusions are different. Lydiard actually does not say what you say he says. You took the word "unlimited", deleted the rest of Lydiard's words, and replaced them with your own. How honest is that?Then you are asking me to provide proof for your words.If you want to claim Lydiard (or me) overrules Einstein by redefining "infinite" as 7-10 years, we should be very precise about who said what, to place the blame correctly. Which terms did Lydiard really use, and what quality did he claim was unlimited.As clear as "aerobics is infinite unlimited enhance to Lydaird training" must be to you, we see that:- Lydiard did not ever say "infinite" aerobic enhance- Lydiard said that the "cardiac system" development is unlimited (we don't know its limits). He's talking about the heart and blood vessels. "Cardiac system" is not measured in years, or in ml/kg/min, or in min/km.To properly establish the context, we see "This is how I EXPLAIN TO MY ATHLETES IN A SIMPLE WAY the approach they have to make". So you are challenging the scientific accuracy of something Lydiard called "a simplified explanation to his athletes", and not a submission to science in a peer reviewed paper. Simplifications necessarily hide complexity. But even so, has science disproved this statement? Are you aware of any science that found the limit to "cardiac system" development?His main point is that athletes are ultimately limited by anaerobic efforts, so it's best to develop the "cardiac system" to maximize aerobic development. This is something that can increase year after year, until other limits kick in.

António Cabral wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/gprrc/lydiard.html

ARTHUR LYDIARD’S LECTURE

(…) We all know that great endurance athletes, their ability to assimilate, transport, and use oxygen is an excess of 7 liters per minute, or 85 milliliters per kilogram per minute. We know that. So if we have a high school athlete with oxygen uptake level of, say, 3 liters per minute, I try to explain to them that this (aerobic development = darker shade) is not a limiting factor, that this can be improved. No one knows what the limits are to the development of the cardiac system in any individual, no one knows this. Years ago, they used to say this was limited. Today we know that it’s UNLIMITED. We don’t know its limits (…)

(capital letters are done by me)

Great posts rekrunner.

A word of advice to Antonio:

You seem to dislike the Lydiard way because you find other training methods to be better. That dislike seem to blind you in these discussions, stop with the silly insults and like rekrunner points out above, twisting of Lydiars words.

If your english isn't good enough to comprehend these things, I suggest you take a course or buy a dictionary, seems to me you have misunderstood quite a lot

Also, you mention that there are better ways of training, but do not mention the methods. That would be nice, no need to write four pages about it, just mention it and perhaps paste a link in at the bottom.

I see that you are the kind of mediocre post that early on you ask questions, but you really want is to send is your preconceived opinion and nothing else, and when you don´t get the answers (my answers) that satisfies your preconceived idea you start with comments and recommendations. My answers dont´t cover your questions. It´s a pity.

Rekrunner

Again. Be serious, don´t play with words or the meaning of words and the meaning of sentences. You know what i wrote precisely. And you know that i´m right precisely.

Don´t do "fait divers". What 100miles, what unlimited by infinite ? You are defeated in your argument either. Admit it, please.

I give a damn that you considers me or you don´t. I give a damn that you respect me or you don´t. i give a damn that you are my fan or you don´t. That really doesn´t matter me at all. I don´t take my ideas by the number of dfans i got.

António Cabral wrote:

I see that you are the kind of mediocre post that early on you ask questions, but you really want is to send is your preconceived opinion and nothing else, and when you don´t get the answers (my answers) that satisfies your preconceived idea you start with comments and recommendations. My answers dont´t cover your questions. It´s a pity.

Wrong. I'm not here to send some preconceived opinion, I like that coaches like yourself are posting in here, and I have nothign against you Antonio. I only suggest that you behave a tad more mature and normal (doesn't need to be nice, when normal is sufficient for a good discussion), but silly insults and pretending to not understand what rekrunner mean is way below you.

I asked because I was curious, you can choose to not answer, and it doesn't surprise me that you don't answer me on questions regarding your bad behaviour when I'm right.

Insults will get you nowhere, why post at all if thats all you want to give? Do you have superiour complex?

António Cabral wrote:

I give a damn that you considers me or you don´t. I give a damn that you respect me or you don´t. i give a damn that you are my fan or you don´t. That really doesn´t matter me at all. I don´t take my ideas by the number of dfans i got.

He likes your ideas, but doesn't like you (anymore) because of your behaviour in Lydiard threads like these. Don't you see the trend of your own behaviour in Lydiard threads are bad?

Of course you can disagree, but there is no need to behave superior or rude.

Also, you should read rekrunners post again. He schooled ya.

To his credit Antonio has given some good insights in the past, in previous threads, when he stays focused. "2 kinds of runners" and "History of intermittent training" are Antonio Cabral threads I found highly valuable.To find out more about "better" training, you can search for terms like "specificity", "progression", "intensive", "extensive", "linear vs. non-linear periodization".Maybe you'll find a few clues here, but you'll have to look hard:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3932885&page=7http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4030549&page=11Canova threads are also useful (but you still have to look hard).Lydiard can be describe like:- linear periodization (focus on one training quality at a time)- aerobic training (lots of it for base)- some hill training (jumping drills, some fast efforts for leg speed)- anaerobic training (just enough to get to the peak)- mixing them together just before racingOne drawback is large periods where you are far from race ready, while you rebuild your base. (Lydiard has workarounds for that)."Better" methods look at different things, and describe training in different terms:- non-linear periodization is used -- all phases include all kinds of running, in some proportion, but the proportions will change; Even hill training (or circuits or plyometrics) can be found in several phases.- The aerobic/anaerobic concept gets replaced with general/specific (specific is race pace and race distance; general is far from race pace and race distance)- aerobic is viewed relative to the event. Aerobic for 800m is not the same as aerobic for 10K.- As the training advances from week to week, there is a well defined progression of race paces and distances. For example, interval training can be used first to increase the intensity of paces, until you reach race pace, then in a next phase, extend the volume of race pace.This is woefully inadequate, but gives a hint at the kinds of differences between Lydiard training, and "better" methods.

Barakus Obama wrote:

Great posts rekrunner.

A word of advice to Antonio:

You seem to dislike the Lydiard way because you find other training methods to be better. That dislike seem to blind you in these discussions, stop with the silly insults and like rekrunner points out above, twisting of Lydiars words.

If your english isn't good enough to comprehend these things, I suggest you take a course or buy a dictionary, seems to me you have misunderstood quite a lot

Also, you mention that there are better ways of training, but do not mention the methods. That would be nice, no need to write four pages about it, just mention it and perhaps paste a link in at the bottom.