Lydiard Imitations

Renato Canova wrote:

At the end of every thing, people having still the idea of "Lydiardism" can make a very bad service to Lydiard himself, because of sure, if Arthur was still alive and in activity, he was able to develop his methodology according to the needs of the athletic of todays, discovering something new in training, as he did 50 years ago.

Wakihuri and Wanjiru had tremendous success with Lydiard-style training pretty recently. Yes, it was an adaption of Lydiard made by Japanese coaches. It was, to address the topic of the thread, a Lydiard imitation. So we know that we can imitate Arthur and if we have the right athlete and know what we're doing, be about as successful today as Lydiard was in his prime.

I hear what you are saying that there is confusion and that the requirements for the elite are different than for those more casual. But what are the differences truly? Application of a professional career is one thing but the principles of training do not differ. So we can separate the specific needs of the professional with the specific needs of the casual but we can't separate training principles, as they are unchanging. Really the only difference for me between the two is in amounts. The professional will do more. As someone who was professional in this sport and as someone who has coaches many children, there are no differences between the two in terms of training principles and the fundamentals of methodology.

In the Southern hemisphere we have a similar problem to Koskee's but for a different reason. Our Summer ends around March and that is where the qualifying competition for international teams are conducted. So basically most athletes will have to plan everything around this qualifying competition. If they qualify then its another 5 months of preparation for the actual team. Of course, for the higher-end athletes qualifying isn't an issue from year to year so the main focus becomes the international and the domestic situation becomes secondary. For the rest of the athletes this was reversed. It does require a double periodised year for most Southern hemisphere athletes to function internationally. So the parallel to Koskei is quite marked.

The problem enters when an athlete has lost underlying condition due to too many double periodised years in a row. That is why i advocate only ever starting with singles and then returning to singles periodically. As i said before Daley Thompson applied this to his own career by taking 81 and 85 off international competition.

So we have this issue of needing to compete all year round for financial purposes and then we have what is best training methodology for development. A compromise is needed for sure, but when the financial factor overwhelms the best training factor i think we have problems.

I agree but as usual there is a point of difference. My own training appears to have been a blend of Soviet and Lydiard. Probably Cerutty is mixed in there as well. So yes already we see a blend and i think there always will be a blend. I am just not prepared to leave behind the principles by which i operate. I look into coaches now for their understanding of the principles of training and there aren't really that many coaches who are/were operating from that level. As far as i'm concerned as long as the principles hold true the method is irrelevant.

The problem with this modern training method for me is that principles are broken for reasons other than what is best for the end performance. Sure money needs to be made but this desire has to be tempered with the wisdom that all good things take time doesn't it?

Following the actual plan would of course be a big mistake. Following the same training pattern is probably a good idea, if they have all the available information that is. It all comes back to whether we apply different principles to the amateur versus the pro. If we don't then all we have is a difference in the training variables of intensities and durations.

So we can show this by extending Joe ahead a few years. Lets assume Joe is potentially a 2:10 runner and 2:27 was simply the result from his first year of training. So looking ahead we might have a training program that more closely resembles a pro. But if you took out the principles from both their would be identical. That is the thrust of my argument.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

the Lydiardists misunderstand my statement.

Probably because you regularly contradict yourself.

This was from your interview on Flotrack.

The aerobics is the important one of the basic training variables

And these two you just said.

However the aerobic system is very important but it´s not the important one

and

It´s very important, but the important one it´s anaerobics

So which is it? You can't be this confused can you?

However the aerobic system is very important but it´s not the important one. If the aerobic system would be the important one, the determinant one to distance events performance, then the marathon runner would run all distance events from 800m-1500m-mile-3000m-5000m mile up to the marathon as fast as the 800m-1500m-mile-3000m-5000m specialist.

Take care when it´s said that aerobics it´s very important. It´s very important, but the important one it´s anaerobics despite that the anaerobics is the lower percent of both systems required to perform every distance event.

The 800m runner with low VO2max up to the marathon runner with low VO2max relate to some others can win over runners with high VO2max, because he does high resistance, and resistance is a combo of both aerobic and anaerobic systems.

The car needs gasoline, or every type of energy. One car without gasoline doesn´t move, doesn´t run, but it´s the engine that makes to move the car really.

Imagine that you build the engine. You can test it, train it, experience it, improve the engine without gas. But you can´t test the gasoline, experience the gasoline, improve the gasoline, without the motor/engine.

The better is the gasoline energy the better the car runs, but also the better is the engine the better the car runs, and both be better the car runs fast.

Therefore, the length of time or the period that you can work on the engine improve, or the length of time that you can work to improve the gasoline is minimum that you can test one each other without both.

For every improve that you think you did in the engine you need to test with gasoline. If the deadline to improve the car it´s one year season, It´s an absurd to work on gasoline first to try to improve the gasoline for a long period of months and work on the engine for the last few weeks just.

Here you have another "engineer" perspective why "aerobic first" it´s a stupidity. The target to combine aerobic and anaerobic shall be daily, weekly, and not monthly or separate both.

To each aerobic progress made by training teh aerobic "house", what´s the result of training a few days or one week, shall be mixed up some anaerobic with the aerobic as an extensive process.

There the long term quite permanent build of "aerobic house" is a question trans-multi-season periodisation that might cover the entire career of the distance runner.[/quote]

HRE wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

At the end of every thing, people having still the idea of "Lydiardism" can make a very bad service to Lydiard himself, because of sure, if Arthur was still alive and in activity, he was able to develop his methodology according to the needs of the athletic of todays, discovering something new in training, as he did 50 years ago.

Wakihuri and Wanjiru had tremendous success with Lydiard-style training pretty recently. Yes, it was an adaption of Lydiard made by Japanese coaches. It was, to address the topic of the thread, a Lydiard imitation. So we know that we can imitate Arthur and if we have the right athlete and know what we're doing, be about as successful today as Lydiard was in his prime.

For the first time since i remember You did admit that the original Lydiard training shall be improved with some changes, the classic Lydiard method, the original Lydiard training principles are outdate some how, or wouldn´t need to what you name "develop the method".

Or if can can be developed, then we need to discuss, aspect by aspect, for instance we might discuss and develop the use of long runs for middle distance events, we might discuss and develop the need of aerobic first, we might discuss and develop the Lydiard season periodisation, we might discuss everything from the Lydiard training and not be made in stone as you always debate the Lydiard method the way you said to Renato "you will not change me, i willn´t change".

Develop Lydiard training means that things so easy to agree that the 3/4 or 4/7 needs to be reformulate. Develop the Lydiard training means the the main reason that you do any Lydiard aspect it´s not because Lydiard told you (in private) !

But develop the method why and how? With Lydiard authorization ? Imagining what would be the changes he would do if he was alive ? Develop but in what direction ? To the direction of Renato Canova method, closer to Renato method method, with the miss ofd the long run, with admit that "aerobic first" in some cases doesn´t that the original Lydiard training, the classic Lydiard method, the original Lydiard training principles are outdate some how, or wouldn´t need to what you name "develop the method".

But develop the method to why and how? With Lydiard authorization ? Imagining what would be the changes he would do if he was alive. Impossible. Develop in what direction ? To the direction of Renato canova method, closer to Renato method method, with the miss of the long run, with admit that "aerobic first" in some cases doesn´t. Most of those king of changes it´s what Lydiard did fight to not change, so how do we know ?

So Wakihuri and Wanjiru had tremendous success with Lydiard don ´t know if they were with Lydiard, but i admit that what you say it´s true. But also other kenyans and east. Africans did without Lydiard training.

Whoever the problem is a different one. Of course that Lydiard -the coach - id we was still alive would improve his training to a diffrent training in some aspects than Lydiard training of the past.

But don´t miss this point. This what Renato says doesn´t mean that the Lydiardist or the Lydiard coach is able or competent or efficient to work on that changes - i see they don´t, and they weren´t able to do that training change required as effectively. So, why to keep on the same Lydiard training, why to be a Lydiardist if it´s not as effective and some other present training does.

Resuming: why the option to be a Lydiard if there are other kind of training more effective, other training methods more efficents, why ? Ther´s only the emotional and sentimental reason,( or the reason of self-interest, be advertising and commercial, financial, or jealousy. Actual ther´s no other reason to do the Lydiard training option, or the Lydiard choice rather than some more in-date training. Or might be ignorance from what Lydiard or that exists other training better than the Lydiard one.

Things just go round in circles with you don't they. round and round thread after thread year after year and go nowhere.

Lydiard principles are Soviet principles are the same principles in yoga, the martial arts, Pilates and for Cerutty. You can find them in Feldenkrais, Alexander Technique, Osteopathy and cranio-sacral therapy. These principles are behind Chinese Medicine and Aurveyda.

Methodology changes from situation to situation. The principles remain the same. When the laws of physics change or when human physiology changes then the principles will be different. In the foreseeable future this won't happen, so we can rest assured what we are attempting to work with will remain the same.

Antonio, if you take not a single other thing from this entire thread, can you at least take this idea into your head? It will be a step forward for you. From methodology based coach to principle based coach. Why don't you try it, for certain your principles need some work.

Might be my english is not good, so let me repeat.

Each one individual is free to choose, be in life, training approach etc.

However if it´s admitted that the Lydiard training needs to be developed/improved from the original Lydiard method, there´s is not rational, training methodology, scientific reason, or logic reason to choose for that new Lydiard developed/improved since every move/change from mthjer original Lydiard to the direction to the "new"Lydiard developed/improve direction is just to get closer and approach to other modern more update training method, that did that training updates before and more efficient than Lydiard training did.

In the case it´s agreed that the Lydiard original training needs some update and changes, the reason to follow Lydiard or be influenced by Lydiard it´s EMOTIONAL, or INTEREST AGENDA, like financial, advertising, or be jealously.

Not training methodology anyhow, but any other kind of reason, or interest.

Well, I was rooting around in the loft this morning and I finally found my copy of Running With Lydiard (Lydiard+Gilmour, 1972). I had not opened it for about 20 years.

First surprise: the chapter on the 'aerobic' part is pretty short, just 12 pages

Let's look at what he ACTUALLY says, which may surprise you.

Mileage, p28: "my athletes...were running 160km per week of at their near best aerobic effort during their..evenings...and long weekend run; but....up to another 160km in much more easily paced morning and midday training sessions". Sounds like the modern Kenyans.

(However, he claimed Snell was doing 160km solid and another 90km of jogging, which I doubt based on Snell's own testimony).

p33-34: "Ron Clarke, though he did the right thing in continuing to push up his running speed as his maximum steady state increased, ......lacked the essential anaerobic and sprint training which would balance it and put the vital edge on to his racing".

Now for my favourite. In the schedules part on p126, for middle distance (800-1500) men:

"For as long as possible" (i.e. base period)

Monday - Easy fartlek running - 1 hour

Tuesday - Long aerobic running - 1.5 hours

Wednesday - Time Trial 5000m

Thursday - Long aerobic running - 1.5 hours

Friday - Easy Fartlek 3/4 hour and hills

Saturday - Time Trial 10000m

Sunday - Long aerobic running 1.5 hours or more.

He also says to do a second easy run in the morning if possible.

So, the much-vaunted never-go-anaerobic base includes

(a) a hard 5k (I guess not too different from us doing 6x1000 or 4x1 mile these days) almost certainly beyond the 'anaerobic threshold'

(b) two sessions of fartlek, which presumably involves lots of shorter doses of faster paced running,

(c) some hills, even before the hill phase, which I presume involves some bounding and springing

(d) a hard 10k, which I imagine often involves a minor cross country or road race in practice.

This sounds remarkably "modern" and multi-paced to me.

Antonio, is this what you would have expected?

HRE wrote:

we know that we can imitate Arthur and if we have the right athlete and know what we're doing, be about as successful today as Lydiard was in his prime.

Barry Magee - 2:18 marathon

You keep saying "we lose what we don't train". The point of me showing you those numbers, is that even after 14 years (in that example), the "general" paces are still a significant part (40% of 120 miles is 48 miles) of the training. I'm just saying maybe it's not quite as bad as I think you fear it is.

Didn't you think it was strange, this question about the "US and GB" being "undeveloped" countries. That's because the original comment appeared some weeks ago on the very first page. Here are the two quotes together, and you can see for yourself. Is Antonio just mixing up negatives (again), or is it really a sarcastic reply?

Sorry it was not Barry Magee, It was Paul Ballinger: 2:10

fastest lydiard coached 26.2mi wrote:

HRE wrote:

we know that we can imitate Arthur and if we have the right athlete and know what we're doing, be about as successful today as Lydiard was in his prime.

Barry Magee - 2:18 marathon

Paul Balinger-2:10 plus

Jeff Julian 2:14

Richard Tayler 2:15

Renato,

I have two practical problems dragging myself out of history:

1) Where can I find out about more comprehensive and structured information about modern training? Is there any comprehensive reading material you can suggest?

2) If we shouldn't mix up ideas and situations of top athletes and amateurs, which parts of modern training are relevant to the amateur, or aging master, or to the coach of young athletes? How do the ideas have to be tempered for amateurs, masters, or young athletes? Is there some applicable reading material you can suggest addressing these "non-elite" situations?

I don't have the inclination to move to Kenya, or travel to symposiums, and lectures, and workshops, but I do have money for books, and time to read them.

In the old days, successful coaches wrote books. Lydiard is widely accessible, in dozens of books written by Lydiard, or Lydiard athletes, not to mention a foundation setup to continue uncorrupted Lydiard training ideals. Recently, in another thread, I asked a certain "Khadaffi out of Power" the same question, for some modern references of books, conferences, symposiums, seminars, presentations, scientific papers and articles. First, I was confusingly recommended 3 Lydiard books he didn't like; then I was told, to my great surprise, that no modern books even existed, and I should do my own "self-directed" research (which, incidentally, led me to Lydiard); then later, I was told, to my great frustration, that he himself actually possessed at least a dozen modern books, but refused to give me the name of one, for fear of setting a precedent of answering an infinite set of requests.

I simply can't believe that the last training books ever written are from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Is modern training really largely undocumented, as was suggested to me? Maybe a few successful books are needed to move training forward for the masses.

So far, you have been the only source of information I have come across, with so many detailed posts in the last decade here at "letsrun". I am deeply grateful, but at the same time, it's tough to get a complete picture, and it's tough to know how to translate these training details of your top athletes to my personal situation. I considered reading your marathon book, but now you say that if you wrote one today, it would be completely different. Would reading your "old" book be a waste of my time?

Thanks in advance for any recommendations you may have.

Seems i missed that sarcasm and thought Antonio was being serious. :pOk so we lose what we don't train but if we maintain we can offset this. This offset or mitigating effect is a diminishing one though. Gradually the maintenance won't be enough and a period of topping up would be required.That example of 14 years is not a real example (i assume). It's a theoretical projection, so it's hard to really know what would be happening there. If after 14 years this athlete is still doing 50 miles a week as general training then this is probably enough, although i don't know. I have no experience in this to actually know.I'm trying, trying to find a way to express this underlying conditioning idea. You can see i've been trying. Whether the situation is as bad as what i'm saying it is or not, there is a problem there. Length of careers is probably the most obvious factor. Anywhere here are a few words from someone who had a very long career.

Then he provides a formula to define aerobic capacity HR ceiling.

Do these guys count?- Rod Dixon (2:08:59, in New York)- Dick Quax (2:10:47)Maybe also Rob de Castella (2:07:51 in Boston)?

HRE wrote:

Paul Balinger-2:10 plus

Jeff Julian 2:14

Richard Tayler 2:15

fastest lydiard coached 26.2mi wrote:

Barry Magee - 2:18 marathon

gypsy,

The example was mainly to show that nothing dramatic happens until after 10-12 years. Regardless of what he does in reality, with Kenyans, this was the example he published to demonstrate the concept. Your concern starts to kick in, if at all, according to the example, for the 35 year old athlete whose been competing since he was 18.

Regarding your Mark Allen quote, you really like your multi-events, don't you?

It sounds similar to the "Joe" situation, where the aerobic training was completely missing, and had to be developed from scratch.

Another difference is that Ironman triathletes, depend even more on fat-burning aerobic energy than "simple" marathon runners. And with all due respect to triathletes, the sport is younger, and the level of competition is not as deep as in athletics, or the marathon. We don't know how Kenyans can swim and bike yet, but if they can, we all have to take up bowling and darts (or rugby).

So it's hard for me to see a similar concept being applied to triathlons because it's not yet necessary, and it may not even be possible (or significant considering the other events).

Antonio,Practically speaking, how would one go about switching methods?Forgetting that we might actually be following the Lydiard training option, because it is proven, and well documented, and customizable, and practical, and generally available to the masses, and it fits our racing schedule, and we know how to progress training over a whole career and lifetime, is there a brief list of alternative training methods that have been shown to be more efficient, effective, and otherwise, simply better than the Lydiard one?Where are these methods described in sufficient detail, in order to enable the ones who have no reasons of self-interest, be advertising and commercial, financial, or jealousy, to successfully upgrade their training, and sufficiently educate them to prepare new training plans, and career planning, compatible with the new methods?Thanks in advance,

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Resuming: why the option to be a Lydiard if there are other kind of training more effective, other training methods more efficents, why ? Ther´s only the emotional and sentimental reason,( or the reason of self-interest, be advertising and commercial, financial, or jealousy. Actual ther´s no other reason to do the Lydiard training option, or the Lydiard choice rather than some more in-date training. Or might be ignorance from what Lydiard or that exists other training better than the Lydiard one.

I agree with 10 years. 10 years seems to appear a lot. They say in martial arts it takes 10 years to become a serious student. If you measure the international careers of athletes you find 10 years seems to be the length of their 'serious training'. Do the Kenyans and Ethiopians need 10 years for aerobic development?

A friend of mine, hammer thrower 70m. He started in weight lifting and in one year broke all the regional and state records. This was where he was most gifted, strength. Lifting wasn't enough for him so he moved to hammer, for the increased difficulty. One year when we were about 25 he used my gym for 3 months. He hadn't lifted seriously in some years and decided to respond to a challenge from a local discus thrower. So for 3 months they lifted heavy in the gym and i saw every session because i was in limited training following an operation. IN about 8 weeks he full squatted 300kgs to the floor and stopped pushing it any more. The discus thrower maxed 280 to the floor after 12 weeks. Strength for this guy is like aerobic for a Kenyan. It's already powered up naturally and easy to train and maintain.

I'm not sure why you don't see the correlation between tri's and endurance track. Sure it's less a developed sport but not by so much. Even so is this a reason to dismiss the lifetime career findings of the most successful triathlete ever?

A friend just sent me this from 1972. This idea didn't catch on so well.

(and timetravel wasn't involved)