Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Wetcoast you nailed it!

It does not need to be complicated. The challenge to write a simple program in which all can benefit is a real challenge, because it is quite simple, and has already been done by Arthur Lydiard.

What is not simple is the race specific phase, that must take many factors into consideration. This is where a true coach comes in.

Lydiard method keeps it simple. What was it that Frank Shorter said? He couldn't write a book on running because it would just be 1 page? He wrote down that 1 page and it looked like the Lydiard weekly schedule!

I signed up for the go2lydiard program because to understand training you must try everything. It has some quirks but it is very easy to follow and understand.

Knowledge is power, or better yet, knowledge is aerobic power.

I have. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Dan,

I will accept 'cult' if you accept, 'assumptive person unwilling to know'.

It's not a generic training program, there are over 1500 schedules all dependent on many factors that you have to put in.

The training paces that it returns have matched right on with what Peter Snell and Chris Solinksy had done and what a 4 hour marathoner would do. It was originally developed by Dr. Dick Brown who was formerly with Nike's Athletics West and coached top-level runners.

Give it a try.

Renato,

Sounds good to me. Of course the man who coined the phrase literally turned kids in his nieghbourhood into excellent runners. So from his perspective champions were everywhere. But I like your change.

Spot on.

All you've done is use the term "theory" to define "theoretically". Theory - (google "define: theory")1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world2. hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena3. a belief that can guide behavior (or designing a training program in our case)4. a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and has stood up against attempts to prove it false. Based upon the definitions above"Theoreticaly, a runner with a 59 second PB for 400M can run a sub 4 minute mile" - is a poor and not helpful theoryIt is not well-substantiated. It is not tentative. It should not be used to guide behavior (or training). It has been proved false hundreds of thousands (??) of times. Theoretical endurance should not be confused with imagined/pretend/fantasy endurance when constructing a theory.

Hodgie-san wrote:

A runner with a 59 second 400 m pb will never run a sub 4 min mile.

Theoretically:

1. Of, relating to, or based on theory.

2. Restricted to theory; not practical: theoretical physics.

3. Given to theorizing; speculative.

This explains it: http://www.flotrack.org/article/5101-Master-Run-Coach-Interactive-Lydiard-Coaching

Thanks, but I'm asking myself, "hey, do I detect just a slight hint of sarcasm?"You asked me to clear up HRE's doubts. I don't think he has doubts regarding ST and FT muscle types and training.I could say a couple things about Type I and Type IIa and Type IIb fibers, and even Type IId and Type IIx fibers. But I think a deep tutorial is not relevant to the discussion. Anyone can go to wikipedia and find out more. It's enough to read what Hadd says in the "2 kinds of runner" thread -- which explains how fibers are related to running quite adequately.I think HRE has read the "Cabral and Hadd" thread. I remember he commented about it then, that he didn't see anything he didn't already know, and didn't see an issue with providing targeted training for either FT or ST types under Lydiard.Let me bring in another analogy. I'm no Italian chef, but I love to eat. Let's call Lydiard's method spaghetti bolognese. First you cook the pasta. Then you cook the meat. Then you cook the sauce. Then you mix it all together, and you're ready to eat.Let's call today's modern method lasagna. You layer the pasta, the cheese, the meat, the sauce, and then repeat. A skilled chef may even stack the lasagne higher than you can a mound of spaghetti. When it's high enough, you experiment by adding mushrooms, zucchini, bechamel, sausages, etc.Now, there is no doubt that lasagna is not spaghetti. They are different foods. They have a lot of things in common, and taste the same, but they have important differences too. To me, a lot of the criticism about spaghetti looks like this:- "My lasagna has meat." Well spaghetti has meat too.- "My lasagna has cheese." Well, I didn't make the spaghetti with cheese, but if you want, go ahead and put cheese on top, and we can still call it spaghetti.- "I can make lasagna with spinach and bechamel." Well that's not in my spaghetti. If you really need those things, you can add them to the spaghetti dish too, but maybe we shouldn't call it spaghetti bolognese any longer.- "Spaghetti used to be the best, but it is no longer the best". Some people still like spaghetti better than lasagna.So Lydiard focused on aerobic and anerobic and strength (hill bounding) as running ingredients. A modern perspective, speaks about general, special, and specific training for the athlete/event.I tend to agree that progress usually goes forward, so the modern perspective must promise more, or else it would have been rejected.But you know, some people are quite happy to eat spaghetti marinara.Anyone else hungry? Gotta go.

khadaffi out of power wrote:

Thanks for the ST and FT teach. I see you are an expert.

Most of what you say i might agree. However i have no clue how Lydiard had done, i don´t know enough to confirm your observation.

Of course a 59 sec 400 runner can never run 4:00 mile. It's a percentage of your max, like in the Daniel's tables. My favorite is Oxygen Power. A good estimate for anyone in the 15-16 minute range for 5000 meters would be to run a mile to best ability, let's say 4:30. Your 5k time would be mile + 30 seconds for overall average, so a 4:30 guy could run approximately 15:35-15:40. I spoke with Dr. Daniels about how he obtained his data and it was basically based off thousands of well-trained or elite runners' PR's at various distances. Obviously it's a %, so the faster your mile, the less time you would add per mile to approximate 5k ability. I know a lot of people on here already know this, so sorry for that, but I just wanted to bring up the point.

Look at it a different way:

A 4 minute miler never has to run faster than a 59 second 400m.

Hodgie-San was making a different point, with this extreme example, saying something like, in theory, the speed is sufficient. Not that it would ever occur in reality.

rekrunner wrote:

Look at it a different way:

A 4 minute miler never has to run faster than a 59 second 400m.

Hodgie-San was making a different point, with this extreme example, saying something like, in theory, the speed is sufficient. Not that it would ever occur in reality.

Oh ok. I understand what you are saying now.

Nothing at all, it´s from my heart. If you knew me, you will understand that i also fight methodologies and the individual or grup ideas, i don´t fight the individual, the group or the person. It happens that sometimes it´s impossible not to carry one debate without name the individual or the group or individual that posts with real name or nickname.If i don´t comment the idea of one individual with name or direct reply it´s harder to make me understand.I said it, but i want to repeat once again. I´m nothing against you, or your training, of course that you are free to follow your own training decisions,to be Lydiard, old school, long runs whatever your choice. I also consider that as rekrunner says there are poor training than Lydiard. But in another aspect, i´m not a man to be subservient. Every human being is equal somehow and it´s hard to me to deal with the one that thinks that i can debate with one individual because he is superior to me supposedly. Sincerly, your opinion that people like Peter Snell, be the great champion that he was and the good scientist that he is, can´t be analysed, or comment his ideas. Also the posts of mr. Kim or Barbara that i might be quite because the ones that i debate are the greats, i don´t accept that your critics. Keep on post. Without you and some others like what would be my contribute form the Lydiard debate, a solo debate, without me what would be teh Lydiard debate, some cold out of interest debate. Without you, me and the others what would be Renato´s posts ? Cold, solo debate. A speach without feedback. like we are praying in the desert for the sand.It´s hard to understand some training methodolgy, but it´s harder to read the man´s heart. Don´t you ever thinks that i have anything against you as individual.Once again, i fight individual ideas, i don´t fight individuals.

HRE wrote:

Thanks! Much appreciated.

No he was not. Worng information. Long before him the methodology stresses the interest of the the anaerobic condition for every distance run. Simply Lydiard was the first to put all training variables in certain order. About teh aerobics Lydiard said that you can get infinite/unlimited improve, what is not true either.

Besides if you did search for one training among modern training and the one that you get that gives you WHAT YOU THINK that´s your training need, that mightn be not, and the only one you found is Lydiard training, you did the wrong search. Every rich modern training, and my memory i remeber more than 10, says the same that the Lydiard one: aerobic base.

If you have one stage with 2 steps, the first step is the aerobic/generic training, and the second step is the specific training and rather you move to teh first step without the second or you jump to the second with the first you can´t get to the top. Consequently both steps are necessary and no one can be stressed.

In my opinion your post information you say doesn´t show Lydiard training supremacy. If you happy and satisfied with Lydiard my advice is "don´t change".

As i always say, you ask for one schedule programme without post what´s was your pbs your perfromance enhance done by your "good" method. What´s your perfromance improve ? What you talk about, one top class runner or one local runner ?

Might be that i know many local runners with your level of perfromances done without Lydiard training, but with alternative training diffrent than the Lydiard one. What your performances are ?

With so many fault facts made in training methodology ignorance in just one post, i see why my idea is our of conciliation with your one. I´m happy that you are as you are and as you are addicted to what you are. You are the icon of the Lydiard ignorant adept.

First sign of factual ignorance. Since the Lydiard training lost the level of success that have been in some decades ago, and runners with other methods out of the Lydiard one are on the top of the word rankings, n the top of the olympic medals, world champs, i start to question if you did watch every olympics since the late 70s or if you know how this guys train. Might be you are deaf and dumb and you post in Braille.

[/quote]

Second sign of ignorance, Who teach you fuzzology ? The Lydiard fellows ?

If course that the human body doesn't change, but as far as the science that supports the physiology get´s more knowledge, the physiology advances in the interpretation of body the human being and the human activity.

It was Lydiard precisely, one among other coaches that shows that the interpretation of the human physiology might change.

The consequence of every knew interpretation is the change of the training methodology. If don´t we will be training like the old runners of the early 90 century.

[/quote]

Understand the method then you can appreciate how broadly it is used today and how vast the effect has been across the world. In fact I would argue that it is used more today than it was back in the day.

[/quote]

Blind deaf and dumb what going ion around the word.

The well know wetcoast version of his training methodology. The key words are: the art of training, intuition, gestalt, and holism. Well...don´t forget to say it´s old Lydiard boss training modernized.

I confess my incompetence. Neither 20pages, neither 200, or 2000 but you don´t learn nothing at all. You don´t need to post so many pages. Only one post is enough to show your ignorance, your BS training understand.

khadaffi: I respect what you have to say and all of your opinions. And not to take this personally, but you have made your point. Why not move on? If you repeat yourself once, or over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, the result is the same. Most posters' opinions will not be changed. I wish you the best with your training.

I have been "off line" for a day and am now struggling to keep up !!.

Firstly, The comment Arthur made about 'Champions everywhere". I heard him make that statement quite a few times (BTW : I like Renato's version). But it was a "generalisation" to make people watch out for talent .. no matter what the Sport. He was passionate about getting kids into Sport .. Not just ours.

I am a Head of Faculty of Physical Education at a High School here in New Zealand .. I see phenomenal talent come through every year .... Physically phenomenal that is ... In many/most cases they just don't have the attitude and application to take that talent further.

I have watched kids go to other Sports because it is "easier" or they have been offered huge Financial rewards to do so ...... In the last 10 years I have seen at least 2 young men in this country go to play International level Rugby (as Outside backs) who had the talent to be great 800m runners.

Example : I watched a one of them run 48 secs for 400 at barely 17 on very little training. My wife was watching and she said to me "There is the next Seb Coe" . My wife taught PE at the School Seb Coe went to in England. She saw Coe run/train many times and one of her colleagues used to train with him .. so she knew what she was looking at.

The kid then announced that he would never run again as he was off to Play Rugby. Which he still does !

Back to Arthur : Thanks Kadaffi for keeping the debate civilised... I still disagree with you on many aspects ... But am enjoying the banter even if somewhat frustrating at times.

I reckon we had said some of this on the big thread a few years ago but here it is again.

One of the problems I see with the debate is we who knew Arthur are putting across what we feel he was trying to achieve .. I don't consider myself an expert in this by any stretch of the imagination ... Nobby knowledge base is by far the best. BUT mixed in with this is what people read and interpret, especially in the books and articles.

I sent a copy of "Run to the Top" to Rekrunner a few years ago. He has done a phenomenal job at "getting the ideas".

I go back to the schedules written in that book .. and reiterate .. He never wanted them published. However they were and we have to live with that.

But when he wrote them .. he did so with the knowledge he had of the local area he ran in .. At the time of publication (50 years ago !!) I am not sure he even thought the book would go international.

The local area (West Auckland .. Waitakere ranges) is very hilly, almost every training session headed into those hills. I lived at the other end of the Waitakeres and on a one hour run I could probably count the altitude I had climbed in the Thousands or at least the high Hundreds of feet.

So the 100miles a week that the guys ran was quite tough .. it was not "jogged" and they did not arrive at 100mpw over night ... it took some years to get to that sort of distance per week.

Then people got hold of the book and decided 100mpw is the key and ran 100 mpw ...... Slowly !!!!! The worst interpretation of Arthur that has been made. I have seen diaries of athletes who never quite 'made it' and all they had in them was 100 mpw and virtually nothing else and they called it Lydiard training .... Nothing was further from the truth. !!!! I know that frustrated Arthur.

Keep it rolling Team

Yes ! I Confess : I stole my mates ID. He will not be happy !!.

Khadaffi .. Wet coast has done a huge amount for getting all sorts of information out and some great interviews .... See the latest..

Is this personal with him ??

Also : As Hodgie-san asked can you please tell us what the publication you put out is. Thanks.

Ok, there was someone before... He was not the first... He just put it all in order, but he really didn't...

Bottom line is that people know who he is, NO ONE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE because either you are a coward or just tremendously jealous of his recognition.

I talked about my development, and my experience. Most coaches do not take the proper steps for development which are what you said Lydiard put in order. I then said that once the first steps have been made there is a further development for race specificity, which I learned through training, by having a good coach. I went from running 2:59 being coached without Lydiard influence in the marathon to 2:34 Boston marathon being coached with the Lydiard base then further race specific training. I never ran in high school or college and only started running to stay in shape while having a desk job. I plan on getting close to 2:25 this year on a flat course.

So, now you know my improvement based on Lydiard method. Will you answer my question? Can you write me a plan? You can email me and I'll try it. Let me know and I'll give you my email.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Khadaffi .. Wet coast has done a huge amount for getting all sorts of information out and some great interviews .... See the latest..

Is this personal with him ??

Might be he is a good reporter, a good jounalist, but about training methodology i can´t read so many misunderstand.

Renato Canova , not long ago,post about one idea that i say often and long ago.

Runners are for run and compete, coaches are for coach, agents are for management, physilogists are for doing physiology tests or reasearch, the spectators are to watch the runs and so.

About wetcoast i say that the journalist, the reporter task is to send us the news and intreviews.

The problem is when someone thinks that is competent to take the place of the other because does well (or doesn´t) on his own place.

But in the case of rekrunner is does one big problem of good writting. Since he is a man with training method agenda ne can´t be independent at all, he can´t be inpartial. How might he be ? He might not. He signed for the Lydiard foundation, how can he say that Lydiard isn´t right ? No he don´t.

Wetcoast is the case of lobbying and non-independent journalism.

What i really appreciatte in individuals like Renato Canova, rekrunner, Malmo, John Hadd, it´s that they are independent people, rather they are right or wrong, they think by their own judgement, their own mind.

Barbara, Nobby, HRE, or wetcoast are truly cases of people that have one precise agenda, the agenda of the organization they share, the Lydiard spread agenda. They can´t be free minds.