Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

still waiting....

I tried Lydiard, I tried Hadd, I tried tried summer of Malmo, I tried Canova's scientific approach... All are shades of Lydiard.

Khadaffi, you coward, let's see it!

Quote :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.

Sorry Mate : I disagree. If the guys did not have free minds they would not be on here debating with you. You will have to put me with them as well. But remember I am a "Dolanite" as well as a "Lydiardite"

I know I have studied and have a "heap" of literature etc around my House and in stashed my Garage (my wife would love to rid of most of it !!!) looking at training and Coaching. For instance along side Arthur's "Run to the Top" I keep a copy of John Wooden's "Practical Modern Basketball" .. Now there is a Coach !! .... and James Councilman's 'The Science of Swimming'.

With this debate : I try to get hold of everything I can from Renato's contributions (Have done for a number of years) as well as others.

I am interested in the "Art" and "Science" Of Coaching.

I saw Arthur in action enough to know he had "Art" nailed and although he made some mistakes occasionally I believe he had the "Science" .. so do many others.

Kadaffy duck wrote:

still waiting....

I tried Lydiard, I tried Hadd, I tried tried summer of Malmo, I tried Canova's scientific approach... All are shades of Lydiard.

You are correct. I have no idea what point khadaffi out of power is trying to make other than "your method sucks, my method is better". He doesn't even describe what his method is.

Lydiard is to training what Newton is to physics.

Anyone who argues that one specific training schedule is wrong is very ignorant. There are a 100 different specific training schedules and all of them trace their roots back to Lydiard. The fact that some prefer to do what Lydiard did, and others want to do what Dellinger did and others do what Canova does is irrelevant. The specifics of training programs aren't important at all.

Still the food analogy. I prefer that my training is reported to minestrone soup as first plate.

But about cuisine i pefer the modern one: nouvelle cuisine

Minestrone (Italian: minestra [soup] + -one [augmentative suffix] hence "the big soup," the one with many ingredients) is the name for a variety of thick Italian soups made with vegetables, often with the addition of pasta or rice. Common ingredients include beans, onions, celery, carrots, stock, and tomatoes.

There is no set recipe for minestrone, since it is usually made out of whatever vegetables are in season. It can be vegetarian, contain meat, or contain a meat-based broth (such as chicken stock).

Nouvelle cuisine (French: "new cuisine") is an approach to cooking and food presentation used in French cuisine. By contrast with cuisine classique, an older form of French haute cuisine, nouvelle cuisine is characterized by lighter, more delicate dishes and an increased emphasis on presentation.

The "formula"

Gault and Millau "discovered the formula" contained in ten characteristics of this new style of cooking. The ten characteristics identified were:

A rejection of excessive complication in cooking.

Cooking times for most fish, seafood, game birds, veal, green vegetables and pâtés were greatly reduced in an attempt to preserve the natural flavors. Steaming was an important trend from this characteristic.

The cuisine was made with the freshest possible ingredients.

Large menus were abandoned in favor of shorter menus.

Strong marinades for meat and game ceased to be used.

They stopped using heavy sauces such as espagnole and béchamel thickened with flour based roux, in favor of seasoning their dishes with fresh herbs, high quality butter, lemon juice, and vinegar.

They used regional dishes for inspiration instead of cuisine classique dishes.

New techniques were embraced and modern equipment was often used; Bocuse even used microwave ovens.

The chefs paid close attention to the dietary needs of their guests through their dishes.

The chefs were extremely inventive and created new combinations and pairings.

More serious, or about training and fibers twiches.

I think that or we have data, facts, or we consider what doesn´t provide data, speculation, or despite we don´t have data, we might accept or refuse what the other says.

Th case of fibers. It´s curious that HRE, that might have read the Lydiard adept to make consideration about fibers and the fiber type linked with diffrent training need and when Renato posts about the fiber type he getsd soem doubts.

But...even Peter Snell acting on his physiologist credentials wrote about fiber type with no biopsy. Until then, no Lydiard adept question it, but when the Lydiard training is questioned, HRE, starts with doubts about the subject. The mind of the Lydiard adept works like this: if they see a little whole on the other theory that refuses Lydiard, they move to that little whole and they change that whole to the black whole of the universe.

Wetcoast wrote:

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.

Sounds good to you. Absolutely.

malmo

When the does Khadaffi ever says that his method is better than Lydiard? Khadaffi says Lydiard's method is outdated.

I appreciate your input, coach. And you are correct. When Lydiard said; “Champions are everywhere…” it doesn’t necessarily mean “Everybody can be a champion.” He even said so too (that it’s not). That means the talent is among us everywhere. And, yes, he/she will has to be discovered; which, as we all know, is something you are doing in Kenya. Of course, Lydiard didn’t have that option either. In his case, future champions came to him. So in that respect, he had it easy!!

Again, it is a pity how some people seem to feel so strongly about us believing in Lydiard training and Lydiard himself. In nothing else, he was a good man and he gave me so many opportunities and I owe it where I am to him. I have met so many people, like HRE or Kim or Wetcoast, through him and in his name. I have the opportunity to reach out to people literally around the world in his name.

Rekrunner:

I appreciate you trying to be a peace-maker but it's a very clever analogy but I’m not sure your analogy is quite fitting here. I think what Khadaffi, and to an extent, coach Canova, is saying here is not necessarily just shuffling different components around. It is the actual EFFECTS by shuffling things around. In most cases, in cooking, though not all, you mix things around and whether you put carrots first or potatoes first, it wouldn’t make whole hell of a lot of difference. But it DOES actually make a difference if you are mixing things what would cook at different rates. When you cook Paella, if you put chopped green pepper before you add un-cooked rise, then green pepper would be all brown and soft way before rice would even be cooked. If you add pasta too late, they won’t be cooked… Well, I was going to try to be clever and say that, if you put layers of pasta too late in lasagna, it won’t be cooked but I guess you cook pasta first before you add it so I can’t say that! ;o) But you got the point. And, believe it or not, that IS actually a very interesting, and important, point that I’m getting here – where you add what and when.

One thing I’d have to say here, though, Khadaffi, and I CAN say for sure; it’s your observation of Japanese coaching. I can easily see what’s happening there and it does happen sometimes. But your conclusion is quite off. It might fit in the traditional view of Japanese culture, and it may happen that way still, but I can bet my house that Koide wasn’t doing it because of the reason why you had explained. Koide, if anything, probably tends to get too close to the athletes. After all, he and his athletes live together in the same house, eat together…not sleep together but they really act like one big family. I actually have a certain reservation for that but it is quite opposite of your conclusion. Again, I can name one or two coaches in Japan who might do what you had described but it is very much a minority. On the other hand, if you watch “Miracles”, I found it interesting when Coach Brooks first came in to the room to introduce himself to the athletes, he said; “I’m your coach but not your friend…” That is more or less a traditional Japanese coaching culture.

I’m heading out to Flagstaff Monday to get together with Greg McMillan and later Rod Dixon and Toshi Takaoka, a 2:06:16 marathon runner. We’ve been exchanging e-mails and training thoughts. I hope he’s big enough of a man to talk to a fat slow jogger!! ;o) I’m going to write up our “chat” eventually and that will be posted at American Track & Field. And I still owe my e-mail chat with Coach Canova – once again, it was very interesting and exciting – to post it at Lydiard Foundation’s forum but haven’t gotten around to do so yet.

It really is a pity, Antonio, that somehow we had a wrong start and it really seems that you hate my guts for whatever I might have said. I don’t even remember but you obviously still hadn’t gotten over it. It would have been very interesting to talk about training with you – you certainly have vast stats and knowledge and are a truly a student of the sport.

I do appreciate what you said about me and Japan earlier though. I’m still trying to get hold of 2 of the girls I used to coach. Even now, there’s no way of contacting them and all I can do is to check the list people who had been confirmed dead. At least they are not there but we still have 3 times more people who are “missing”. It is quite worrisome. By the way, to correct you on one more account, Skuj didn’t mean what you had interpreted. He sent me a personal e-mail later and asked me how things were in Japan. As odd as he might come across at times (;o)), he was very nice and genuine and I appreciated his concern.

malmo wrote:

The specifics of training programs aren't important at all.[/quote]

and that's why you're not a coach. If the specifics were not important, if it were that simple malmo then coaches would not be needed.... Simplicity works malmo but the do specifics are very important.

Please don't kid yourself that you have a clue, or your reading comprehension skills are sound. You have neither. Specifics and simplicity are not synonyms.

HUFFFFFFFFF ! AFTER 22 PAGES !

Nooby, you are my good angel !

After 22 pages, finnaly i read one post from one Lydiard adept that understands the main essence of my comments about Lydiard. You use near the same ingredients, but the moment, the sequence, and the proportions etc, might result in different dishes different savors. Of course that from the big umbrella that´s the season periodization to the contain of each phase/block, to the weekly training schedule, to each contain of the single training schedule, everything might change. But it´s run still ! It deals with the same training variants (the same ingredients) rather be Lydiard training or what i consider modern training.

Might be that i´m right or wrong. Might be that Renato is wrong also. But you shall realize that what i say and he says, makes all training difference, it´s not one minor change, it´s not ione change of detail. Only the runner, coach or student that doesn´t run sensibility thinks that it does´t matter if it´s done by the Lydiard style or the modern style.

From now on i don´t need to post nothing more on this thread, about the methodological debate.

This thread is closed for me now into my insistence about this thread issue.

About the japanese, with time i will post something more. But that true stories are just one detail.

Sincerly, you shall post this my post reply on the Lydiard foundation site, why only Renato ? I was been fighting for this my point long before Renato. I never gave up until this moment, and i remember that on early Renato´s posts he says that this my Lydiard fight makes no sense. Later he is the one to debate about the same subject. I was the pionner of this debate, i alwys try to allow the Lydiard adept of what you say with this dish analogy. It would be necessary to be pointless and call you cowards because you don´t reply to Renato´s posts that you decide to share with him some ideas and be aware of the question, and accept that it exists one question. I try to do the same many years ago, but at that time You Nobby, long ago i tried to allow you about this question, but you did refuse to discuss my opinion. It´s when i did decide that i will never give up until the Lydaird adept be aware. Didn´t i told you that we can begin again togheter ? Migt be that the earthquake crisis brough on you something positive, as every crisis always brings.

You shall thanks me, and forget every my offense ! I had also my bill from you on this offense aspect.

I wouldn´t be happy with Lydiard training out of characterization. I would love Lydiard modernized.

What you say on your last post that i quote on this one, if you accept it as organization, it may be the day one, or the day D of the Lydiard revolution.

Nobby, teach the Lydiard disciples what´s teh question. I´m tired of this my insistence.

LOL typical malmo! When did I ever say they were synonymous?

Specific work outs should be simple and effective. What do I mean by specific work outs? work outs that directly improve and facilitate race pace.

In my experience, specific work outs in training programs are very important. I do not agree with your claim that

"The specifics of training programs aren't important at all"

Good for you and your superstitious belief system. Specifics don't mater.

It doesn't matter one iota whether or not the workout is 8x 1000, or 8x 800, or 6x800, or 4x1600, or 6 x 1600 or 3 x 3000 or 16x 400 or ladders or cutdowns or ..., or..., or..., or.... Training for competitive running is a big picture endeavor.

If you think that it does then believe it. The placebo effect is real, just make sure that you really belieive.

What about 8 x 1000 with 1 min recoveryor4 x 300 with 5 min recovery?

malmo wrote:

Good for you and your superstitious belief system. Specifics don't mater.

It doesn't matter one iota whether or not the workout is 8x 1000, or 8x 800, or 6x800, or 4x1600, or 6 x 1600 or 3 x 3000 or 16x 400 or ladders or cutdowns or ..., or..., or..., or.... Training for competitive running is a big picture endeavor.

If you think that it does then believe it. The placebo effect is real, just make sure that you really belieive.

Appreciated even more. And I too, do not like being subserviant to anyone. I undertsnad you completely in this regard.

I rarely post my own ideas on threads about Lydiard. What I try to do is update information on him and his method when I think it's being misrepresented. I do that because I know that it bothered him a lot when people misunderstood him and then criticized him based upon those misunderstandings.

When I worked with him there was give and take. I was fairly mature and experienced and had ideas of my own and reactions to some things he had me doing that didn't work very well. We worked out adaptions. We didn't simply fall back on what was written in the schedules in his books. It was not as rigid a method at all as some seem to believe.

Now he's gone and even if he weren't he wouldn't be here explaining himself because he wasn't much of a computer guy. But in his absence, out of gratitude for the time he spent with me, who was never, ever, going to do anything that would add to his legend and he good and well knew that, I try to help people who ask about his method understand it and make adaptions too. His ideas, like anyone else's, require some individualization.

But I agree 100% with malmo, it's a "big picture" process and once you truly understand the big picture you don't need to obsess about the pixels.

I also agree with Malmo, but I think his idea of Specific is not as mine.

His example (which is the difference between 4x1600 or 6x1200 or 8x1000 or 20x400) is not something regarding "Specific", but regarding "Particulars inside the specific".

Specific means, for example, to have a session with the final goal to work for increasing the Aerobic Power.

We can reach this target using different "Particular workouts":

* short interval a little faster than the An Threshold, with high volume (for example, 20x400) and short recovery, and we can develop this system in different ways :

a) reducing, later on, the recovery time

b) moving, with the same total volume, to longer intervals, woth the same recovery time (instead 20x400, 16x500, for example)

* long intervals at the speed of AnT (for example, 5x1600 or 8x1000m), reducing recovery times or modulating them in order to move to longer distances (8x1000 with 2' rec. can become 4x2x1000 alternating 1'and 2' creating couples, after 1' becomes 30", and after the workouts becomes 4x2000 with 2' recovery at the same speed)

* long continuous run, at the speed around AnT.

On the opposite, SPECIFIC means that we can (in my opinion MUST) have different physiological goals during every period of preparation :

About biomechanics :

* To increase the muscle strength (using weights if you are in a Country with long winter, or hills, at max speed in order to recruit the most part of fibers, including the Fast fibres that we don't activate during long run)

* To increase the muscle elasticity (using plyometric exercises, or easy circuits with particular eye for the reactivity)

* To increase the technical efficiency, according to the individual characteristics (for example, if an athlete uses too long strides, to improve his frequency ; or, is a runner use too short strides, to improve the wideness of his strides)

About bioenergetics :

* To increase BASIC AEROBIC RESISTANCE (long run not too slow, depending on the distance)

My suggestion, for Fast and Resistant type of runners, about long run in the Fundamental period, is as follows :

800m : 8 - 12 km

1500m : 12 - 18 km

Steeple : 15 - 20 km

5000m : 20 - 25 km

10000m : 20 - 30 km

HM : 25 - 35 km

Marat. : 35 - 50 km

* To increase AEROBIC POWER (the system I showed before)

* To increase ANAEROBIC RESISTANCE (quality connected with the AnT, that directly influences the rasing of the Threshold itself)

About this, for example, we can use medium intervals (400/600m) with short recovery, at a speed connected with the speed of the race.

For example, for a runner of 800m able running in 1'48" (13"5 every 100m), we cannot develop the ANAEROBIC RESISTANCE using speed slower than 85% of his speed (15"5 per 100m), that means time of 62" / 1'17"5 / 1'33" for distance as 400 / 500 / 600, with a total volume of 7-8 times the distance of the race (in this case, 6/7 km).

Instead, for a runner of 5000m able running in 13'45", we can use speeds till 5% faster than the speed of the race (16"5 per 100m, so we must use speeds as 15"6, practically similar what we use for the 800m runner, with the difference that recovery times are between 1/3 and 1/2 of the 800m runner, and the volume must be between 8 and 12 km).

* To increase ANAEROBIC POWER (tests on distances between 600m and 3000m depending on the distance of the athlete). This is possible including, at the end of some long run of regeneration, one single test at max speed for the athlete.

Somebody can say that 3000m is the way for identifying the VO2 max. This is true, but for a specialist of long distance (HM / Marathon) the speed of VO2 max has also the function to adapt his metabolic system to produce lactate that he can later use as energy for his competition. This is because I speak about ANAEROBIC POWER.

At the end, what we DON'T do today during the preparation period is to assemble together the nost qualified elements, that can be synthesized with the introduction of workouts of ANAEROBIC CAPACITY (for example, 3x600 at 98% with recovery 8' for 800m runners, or 4x800 at 98% with recovery 6' for 1500m runners, or 4x2000 at race pace rec. 4' + 1000m at max speed for 10000m runners).

So, SPECIFIC is the physiological goal, and this is very important. PARTICULARS used for reaching a "specific" goal are not important.

Under this point of view, the ability of a coach to make EASY what in the mind of many athletes is DIFFICULT (when not IMPOSSIBLE) is not to give too much importance to PARTICULARS, giving great importance to SPECIFICITY.

I don't know what you mean by my training agenda. I think I'm just trying to improve my own understanding. Sometimes I think I have to correct misunderstandings when I see it.I am not a member of the Lydiard Foundation. I think the foundation is great for people with questions about Lydiard training. Where else do "experts" get together and volunteer their knowledge to everyone? But I have no more questions about Lydiard training. I already did extensive research with publicly available materials.I do not think training is a question of right or wrong. It's a question of understanding what works and what doesn't work, and why.

khadaffi out of power wrote:

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.

With Khadaffi's "approval", I was going to rest this thread in peace but, with Coach Canova's and Malmo's comment, decided to butt in just one more time.

I can still remember the place and time when Arthur taught me how "specifics doesn't matter" with intervals. That was, as Dick Brown said, "one of the most beautiful lessons" (incidentally, I had his "Running with Lydiard" with me and had him autograph that book while asking him to repeat that "Richard Tayler" story and explain it more; "It's in the book," he said... ;o)).

While specifics don't really matter that much, I still do like the "flow" of his original "Run to the Top"--and this is the one Canova's post reminded me of. While, in his new book, he would just say "Repetition" and didn't care about specifics, he was quite meticulous about the "flow" earlier and I liked it. He would have 10X200 at 1/4 effort in the first week; then moved to 20X200 at 1/4 effort the next; then 10X200 at 1/2 effort; then 10X400 at 1/4 effort; then 20X200 at 1/2 effort; then 10X400 at 1/2 effort....so on and so forth. "Specifics" don't matter much at all--it could have been 12X350m for all he cared but the flow of the volume and effort was very nicely orchestrated. In fact, if you really listen to your own body, it should happen naturally.

I also remember talking to Rod Dixon, another Lydiard guy, what sort of changes he made when he moved up to the marathon. "Not that much," he said. "But I started doing things like 3 X 2 mile instead of 20X400..." He also said that he did a workout like 3-hour cross country when he was training for 1500m and won the bronze medal. "3-hours! I thought you were a low-mileage guy!? (as portraied by media)" "Yeah, but it was like 15-miles (VERY hilly, he added)..."

And that is your opinion based on your own RUNNING AND RACING EXPERIENCE. I based my opinion on my own running and COACHING EXPERIENCE. BTW, have you ever coach anybody malmo?

You are not having the same discussion. You want to talk about specific workouts. Malmo was talking about the specifics of training schedules.