Lydiard Imitations

HRE wrote:

I suspect each of us has a similar opinion of what the other doesn't understand and after all this time I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind, which is why I said the thing about it being pointless for us to continue discussing, at least this topic.

I have never said that what you do comes from Lydiard or any other place. I believe that it was Chris who said that after doing his interview with you. People see what they see. You don't see much Lydiard in what I was doing in the mid to late 70s, Chris sees some Lydiard in what you do. "It is the theory," Einstein once said, "that determines what can be observed." I'm willing to take your word that you created what you do or have done.

Cheers.

Very interesting what you say.

Since your quote of Einstein sentence moves our debate for the field of logic i want to reply to you.

Einstein once said "it´s the theory that determines what can be observed." Beautiful sentence. I agree

Therefore he couldn´t said ""it´s not the theory that determines what can be observed."

He couldn´t said ""it´s the theory that determines what can not be observed.

He couldn´t said ""it´s not the theory that determines what can not be observed."

From the 4 sentences only one is the one from Einstein, and the other 3 don´t.

Einstein said beautiful things, but he also did built one famous formula that is determined by his universe theory.

The famous E=mc2.

If someone else says to me or to you, or to Einstein that E=mc3, or that E=mc4, or E=vc2 and some more alternatives, i bet with you that you me, Eisntein and everybody else we will say all thatfrom the 4 formulas only one it´s the Einstein formula, and that we all do agree that just E=mc2 is the Einstein formula, all the others don ´t identify Lydiard...excuse me...don´t identify Einstein !

E=mc2 is right according Albert Einstein and all the others are wrong.

In mind logic that is dualistic what one thing that IS, can´t be his opposite or it´s negation/it´s negative or his opposite.

If Lydiard said "aerobic first", he couldn´t said "aerobic last" he could said said "anaerobic first", he couldn´t said "neither aerobic or anaerobic first or last".

If Lydiard said no need of intervals during the build-up aerobic block, he couldn´t said the build-up aerobic block needs intervals or that he prefers intervals during the build-up block.

It´s a question of mind logic, not theory.

I could go on and on with other examples from Einstein, Lydiard statement, but i guess that my poor english and your intelligence is enough that you might understand my way of see things, that is the way everybody see things.

After all theory can be subjective and individual, but mind logic is objective and universal.

Stop replying to him please HRE - he is only going to keep spamming this thread if we talk to him.

Besides half of what he says is madness anyway and the other half is wrong.

Gypsy, Antonio has dropped the sarcasm in recent posts and has been trying to communicate clearly.

And thanks to this last post, I at least understand Antonio's definition of Lydiard now.

Can we agreed to define a term for the sake of further discussion:

"Strong Lydiardism" = "Aerobic first, with no intervals during the base period"

If so, that's a very useful definition for further discussion.

eurodonkey wrote:

Gypsy, Antonio has dropped the sarcasm in recent posts and has been trying to communicate clearly.

And thanks to this last post, I at least understand Antonio's definition of Lydiard now.

Can we agreed to define a term for the sake of further discussion:

"Strong Lydiardism" = "Aerobic first, with no intervals during the base period"

If so, that's a very useful definition for further discussion.

From this moment on and by HRE, Lydiard migh be all, this bullets:

o "one thing at a time" periodization is wrong (less effective)

o "block periodization" doesn't always fit the racing needs

o "do what you want" interval training is wrong (prone to errors)

o interval training can be a powerful tool, when used properly, even in the aerobic base building phase, to build a strong aerobic base

o long runs are not for everyone (especially FT type MD runners); in that case other workouts can provide better aerobic support

o what is aerobic/anaerobic depends on the target event

o LD and MD must train differently, according to their event, even in base phase

o hill phase (circuits) should be customized and incorporated regularly in all phases, rather than a dedicated phase

o "Specific" racing is supported by "Special" training, is supported by "General" training, is buffered by "regeneration".

o Training progresses towards racing by first extending the volume you can maintain a "race connected" pace up to a race distance

o Then increasing the intensity of the pace you can maintain for race distance

o (and vice versa? high intensity progresses to lower intensties while extending volume?)

o Interval training is a tool increasing the effectiveness of "extensive" then "intensive" training, by enabling increased volume and/or intensity.

Resuming, Lydiard is "aerobic first" but can be either "anaerobic first". From now on i got a new Lydiard understand. Or if you do "anerobic first" but you do the 100miles stuff, you are Lydiard still.

You're funny. You see his definition when he himself doesn't?

Feel free to reply to that fake coach if you want. He isn't a coach he an agumentative thinker and a poor one at that.

Basically, the modern approach Antonio seems to like yet doesn't seem to be able to explain, is responsible for destroying runners all over the world.

For no other reason i am against it, for this is reason enough. And basically i'm sick of seeing it. But what to do. Lydiard himself is very clearly against it, yet people aren't sure whether to trust him.

It's a pity for me nobody in here is able to talk on the level of Principles. As a result we keep getting mired in ill-explained methodology. Anotnio isn't one to talk Principles because he doesn't think from that level.

Is there anyone else who can?

Why would anyone want to discuss principles with a guy who embrace every discipline of pseudoscience from bullshido to zanzen or whatever mysticism you call it.

If you did not see the picture after studying aikido for 10 years i doubt its much to learn from you when in comes to training methodology.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2561065117206416260

gee that guy is an embarrassment.

I would stop discussing Lydiard training here whatever the direction it goes.

There is no Lydiard thread on this site that does not involve the uninvited Antonio Cabral.

There is no question that the Lydiard method is THE greatest method ever, to date.

Last week, James Li, Brenard Lagat and Lawli's coach and others said: "I coach only by the Arthur Lydiard method". That was the first thing out of his mouth for his presentation.

Later that day, Alberto Salazar talked about using the Lydiard method.

Greg McMillan uses the principles fully.

17 Olympic Gold Medals.

National Athletics coach for five different countries.

The list is endless.

This thread and all others where Cabral jumps in uninvited are a bloody joke. Cabral has some fixation that is deep in his ego...he is publicly displaying a very foolish side. Ignore him.

I agree with a lot of what Cabral says. We always have to move on and can't just copy a guy who had success years ago. At the same time, it is valuable to learn and analyze what Lydiard did, and give him respect for developing some great ideas that many of us still use today.

We have to keep looking at new scientific studies and adjusting. That is the only way the sport progresses. We have to be careful though, because what we think is correct today, is often seen as wrong in the future.

In the late 70s, we used to laugh at the ballistic stretching that Vince Lombardi and others did in the 50s. Static was wear it was at. 15 years later, everyone was back doing it.

We really know very little about training and recovery science. There is a lot yet to learn.

Canada Coach wrote:

what Lydiard did, and give him respect for developing some great ideas that many of us still use today.

Many of us it´s generalize conclusion, but I don´t.

I don´t follow Lydiard. I didn´t get no influence from Lydiard. Everything that I did learn to build my distance training approach: from runners, coaches, writings, articles, science methodology, whatever, nothing was learned from Lydiard the individual, Lydiard influence, or Lydiard method. I don´t remember of one single coach that crosses my life that, someone that teach me about training that Floows Lydiard, or direct or indirect I or him may recognizes the Lydiard training as his practice or his influence, that Lydiard be decisive to the built of his training approach or that referred every tip from the Lydiard method.

My Lydiard influence is near the same that Lady Gaga is influenced by the Beatles or by Elvis Presley or Tino Rossi or Carlos Gardel . They all write music and sing however…

Every Lydiard norm that I agree, yes, I agree with a few ones, as the one that aerobics be important as distance training approach – not as the Lydiard said specifically “aerobic first” – I´m aware of that importance even before been read or be informed by anything from Lydiard or Lydiard influenced.

Of course that I know Lydiard training long ago, way way back. But all my actual training methodology is made by other different sources from everything without link from Lydiard.

Some of you think that Lydiard got the patent, the authorship or was the most influential one, the most determinant one to what is today quite universal accept as the fundaments of the distance training approach, what is today take as granted, what is distance training common-sense. It´s just your way of think that in the training history of 200 pages would justify half a page of writing.

You are so self centered in Lydiard that based your peculiar history of the distance training methodology you imagine that Lydiard did one decisive contribute to move the distance training method ahead. You think that it exists one history from the past to Lydiard and another history post-Lydiard, being Lydiard the center or the main influence from the distance training.

Simply, It´s not true.

If Lydiard didn´t ever existed, today December 2011, the take for granted of the distance training methodology would be (as it is) exactly the same. If Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, didn´t existed or they did exist as runners but weren´t´t coached by Lydiard, they would produce different results and less success eventually. However despite that the history of the distance training would be done without Lydiard and that Lydiard runners and that Lydiard coach protagonists, however the history of training and the science training methodology would be exactly the same without them. Without Lydiard we would have one Kenenisa Bekele dong exactly the same training and the same performances that he did.

Eventually Some runners all around the world didn´t train as they did and they do with Lydiard existence, but what I mean by the history of the rocky distance training it´s the same without Lydiard existence.

What is virtually untouched in the “science” area is the psychological. What gives the athlete their purpose, motivation and drive? The advances in athletics world records in distance races are not being achieved because of some “new” methods of training athletes.

It is a mental barrier what is possible and what is not possible. Athletes and coaches can only prepare the body to a degree and then it is all “upstairs.”

All of these Lydiard threads are splitting hairs. What the athletes have done and continue to do in training is 90% the same and 10% fine tuning the individual. Once the goal is defined the methodology is very simple but the mental aspect…

Antonio, brother, give it up. You got no love for Lydiard, we get it.

You may remember the story about the time Don Kardong made huge improvement in his three mile time and went under thirteen minutes at a time when only a very small number of guys had done so.

Track & Field News asked him how he'd managed such a big improvement. Kardong answered that he'd looked at times and record progressions and saw that once someone set a record with a time that had once seemed unattainable a few years later all sorts of people were running under that time because they now believed it was possible to do it. Then Kardong said he'd just decided not to wait to believe it was possible to run under 13:00.

You may remember the story about the time Don Kardong made huge improvement in his three mile time and went under thirteen minutes at a time when only a very small number of guys had done so.

Track & Field News asked him how he'd managed such a big improvement. Kardong answered that he'd looked at times and record progressions and saw that once someone set a record with a time that had once seemed unattainable a few years later all sorts of people were running under that time because they now believed it was possible to do it. Then Kardong said he'd just decided not to wait to believe it was possible to run under 13:00.

You may remember the story about the time Don Kardong made huge improvement in his three mile time and went under thirteen minutes at a time when only a very small number of guys had done so.

Track & Field News asked him how he'd managed such a big improvement. Kardong answered that he'd looked at times and record progressions and saw that once someone set a record with a time that had once seemed unattainable a few years later all sorts of people were running under that time because they now believed it was possible to do it. Then Kardong said he'd just decided not to wait to believe it was possible to run under 13:00.

You may remember the story about the time Don Kardong made huge improvement in his three mile time and went under thirteen minutes at a time when only a very small number of guys had done so.

Track & Field News asked him how he'd managed such a big improvement. Kardong answered that he'd looked at times and record progressions and saw that once someone set a record with a time that had once seemed unattainable a few years later all sorts of people were running under that time because they now believed it was possible to do it. Then Kardong said he'd just decided not to wait to believe it was possible to run under 13:00.

I've always thought the mental side is much, much, more important that the physical side. But it will never be fully studied or understood because there's no way to observe the systems at work like you can do with the physical systems.

.

If Lydiard didn´t ever existed, today December 2011, the take for granted of the distance training methodology would be (as it is) exactly the same. If Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, didn´t existed or they did exist as runners but weren´t´t coached by Lydiard, they would produce different results and less success eventually. However despite that the history of the distance training would be done without Lydiard and that Lydiard runners and that Lydiard coach protagonists, however the history of training and the science training methodology would be exactly the same without them. Without Lydiard we would have one Kenenisa Bekele dong exactly the same training and the same performances that he did.

Eventually Some runners all around the world didn´t train as they did and they do with Lydiard existence, but what I mean by the history of the rocky distance training it´s the same without Lydiard existence.[/quote]

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

Ive taken a little from him, just as Ive taken stuff from others. Antonio, you are a little close minded.[quote]Antonio Cabral wrote:

Before we move on, we need to know what we are doing.Scientific studies have rarely helped in the past, and are often inconclusive and contradictory.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Antonio, brother, give it up. You got no love for Lydiard, we get it.

Hodgie-san

I don´t like or hate. I juwst think that Lydiard is outdate in severaL ASPECTS and that Lydiard training doesn´t deserve so many interest. As soon as the threads aren´t about the Lydiard subject we could go on and post about much more interesting subjects.

You (they) are the right to post about Lydiard. They think that Lydiard deserves many posts about Lydiard training. I don´t. There as far as the thread and the posts did continue on this board, i guess that i´m free to posts about the same subject, but a different opinion.

But changing conversation. I can prove that rocky distance training did change in several aspects since the past decades. I think i do. Might be that my argument doesn´t prove to you but i will send some material prove.

But what you bring to the discuss that it´s the mind that makes the improvement progress. can you prove it, rather than your opinion ? What is your argument pro-mind out of your opinion ?