Lydiard Imitations

Seriously? This is the best you can do to describe Lydiard? Is this your idea or you just "copied" what rekrunner had posted-not as a definition of Lydiard but simply throwing questions?

I think this should pretty much settle it. A few people posted questions in bullet points, Antonio hadn't-and therefore I'm assuming he CAN'T-come back with any answer. We shuold just ignore him and move on. He doesn't have any "methodology", any "concpet", any "training principles" that he can remotely explain.

snowden wrote:

I think this should pretty much settle it. A few people posted questions in bullet points, Antonio hadn't-and therefore I'm assuming he CAN'T-come back with any answer. We shuold just ignore him and move on. He doesn't have any "methodology", any "concpet", any "training principles" that he can remotely explain.

My questions still stand. Possibly i will have to send an email to find out the answers.

HRE & Hodgie -- I See the mind as pretty much everything. At some point the training leaves your physical so tuned up that physical qualities are no longer the limiting factor. This is probably true all the way through the training process, but is highlighted when training goes past a certain point. Past this point i came to realise that in the end it is all about mind.

Altering technical components is all about the mind reprogramming/creating change in the body. Changing the bio-motor qualities, is all about pushing the mind outside of the comfort zone, more and more.

I think ultimately for me the training process is about change. How efficiently can you learn to change.

So a runner who pushes hard in a certain intensity zone all year round is going to increasingly find their ability to change is diminished. Whether it is claimed as burnout or staleness or an overuse injury appears, the fact is the ability to progessively change is being lost.

If we weren't so limited by our own minds and the preconceived notions we carry about about literally everything, then we could create personal change in any way by letting go of these preconceptions. Simply taking the idea that we are running 'across' the surface of the ground and not 'into' it, automatically creates significant change in someone who isn't already doing this. On a small scale having runners reduce tension in their hands leads to a reduction of tension in the shoulders. On a bigger scale we can literally change our perceived talent, through simply aspiring to be more. Of course through this process of aspiring, the athlete or coach will seek answers on their own path. These answers usually lead around in a giant circle coming back to where you started, but the circular journey involves gaining the required knowledge to assist in the process of change. The desire to be greater leads someone on a strange, crazy, mad and wonderful journey of self discovery and everything we need to know is found when we start looking, on the journey itself.

So how much change do we want i guess determines how far people are willing to go, but it is the mind that is making this journey, the body is just along for the ride. Yet we place so much emphasis on one (the one we can see) and not the other (which of course we can't).

snowden,

I think Antonio was trying to say "I wouldn't be surprised if HRE comes back and says that these things are all Lydiard too".

My bullet list was more of a scorecard of how I saw the discussion.

My only remaining question is, if not Lydiard, then who? Who shall we study in order to progress? Perhaps the popularity of Lydiard threads, 50 years after the fact, is due to the inability to briefly answer that question.

*sigh*

I've been avoiding this thread because I knew there was no way there had been this many legitimate responses.

By now, no matter what one's opinions are on training, a reasonable observer should be able to recognize patterns here. There are a few coaches, historically, who had so much success that they remain objects of interest among runners.

Discussing Lydiard or Peter Coe or Bill Squires or Renato Canova or Joe Vigil isn't a claim that that particular coach was perfect and no one has learned anything since. Antonio, if you think Lydiard discussions aren't fruitful, no one is making you post here. If you say Lydiard had no influence on you as a coach, very well- but other people have different experiences, and they're as entitled to their opinions as you're entitled to yours. If you don't like the amount of posting about Lydiard, you could simply choose not to add to the volume. Between this thread and some of your other efforts, you've called Lydiard folk from the woodwork and inflated the Lydiard post count dramatically.

So far, I think Hodge took the cake for best summation- 90% of training is pretty standard and hasn't changed much, the other 10% is fine-tuning for an individual. That doesn't mean someone might not like to ask a question about something attributed to Vigil or Lydiard or Igloi, or ask "if X worked for So-and-So, why does Y work for me?"

In short, I think the letsrun community "gets it." You don't care for what you perceive to be an overemphasis on Lydiard. You don't need to turn simple questions into 15+ page threads insisting that Lydiard had no influence on you.

Perfect.

Antonio coached me by email for about 4-5 years, ending about 2 1/2 years ago. I can say without reservation that he's a good coach and a good person. He helped me quite a lot without any personal gain.

He does come across as very argumentative on this and other Lydiard threads. I'm not sure why other than that, as usual, he's trying to help and educate people about distance running history and clear up what he considers to be misconceptions in training methodolgy.

My times as an age 35+ runner when Antonio was coaching me improved from 19:02(5k), 40:10(10k), 1:29:37(HM)and 3:10:58(M) to 17:03, 35:37, 1:21:52 and 3:00:10. Not fast, of course, but significant improvement for a fairly old and experienced runner. (For reference I had been a 1:57/4:10 800/1500m runner in university, then took several years off before starting to run again at age 32)

So, while I understand those who disagree with Antonio's opinion, the people who call him an idiot or a troll simply don't know what they're talking about.

craig mcmahon wrote:

Discussing Lydiard or Peter Coe or Bill Squires or Renato Canova or Joe Vigil isn't a claim that that particular coach was perfect and no one has learned anything since

craig mcmahon

It´s is not true. It happens that few years ago, when you open the site of the Lydiard Foundation on the homepage you might read "Lydiard the perfect training".

If any Lydiard’s changed his opinion about Lydiard the perfectionist it´s by my posts on Let´srun.com about Lydiard training.

Ps- Mr. Wetcoast. You don´t need to thank me to inform craig mcmahon to the Lydiardism detail, "Lydiard the perfect training", as you did thank me when i inform Renato that Lydiard taught that the "aerobic progress is quite unlimited". In effect "the perfect training" and "the aerobic unlimited" both are stupid statements, wrong statements.

It is just never going to stop is it. You are a fixated and obsessed man and really all i can do is pity you. One day you will receive a summons for plagiarism or defamation. I hope i hear about it.

Why aerobic is first.

Because it just is. How can we even debate this? Look there and see what is first.

Anyone who is in confusion about this just think about what comes first in the process - aerobic or anaerobic?

It's very simple, aerobic is first and at higher intensities anaerobic kicks in.

Of course you can argue this isn't the first Arthur meant, But who are we to limit the words of such a great man to one definition or another. His definition probably encapsulated both.

Antonio, I'm sure you're a good guy and the testimony above says you're a great coach. I enjoyed your debates with Hadd on the famous "2 runners: which kind are you?" thread. In fact, while I was replying to you yesterday, I reread that thread to remind myself of the positive things you've contributed to the board.

All that being said. . . let it go, man. At this point in the discussion, the lines in the sand have been drawn. You're not going to get anyone who you claim is a "cultist" to admit what you want them to admit. I haven't read this entire thread, but have guys like Kim and Nobby even bothered weighing in?

You're debating shadows and projected memory, buddy. More people should know you as "Cabral, the coach and contributor" and not "that guy who goes apesh*t whenever someone asks a question about Lydiard."

If you'd like, consider this a personal favor: start a thread about some of the great Portuguese runners we haven't heard of here in the States. Mamede and Lopes, according to your thread with Hadd, had the same coach. How on Earth did he know to train them so differently?

But whatever you do, let's stop this obsession with what you perceive to be a cult.

Not sure if this clarifies the discussion, but here is something that Renato wrote:

The first time that I heard about this system (intensity before quantity, for marathon runners) was in 1972, from Belgian Gaston Roelants, one of the greatest runners of the period. Roelants was record holder of steeple, then moved to marathon. At that time, he was already old (35 years), and, when he explained me his program, I also asked him "why speed before endurance ?". His answer was : "For me, running long and slow is very easy, after many years of activity. What I lose in short time is the capacity of running fast. So, for me it's a mistake running many km slowly before developing speed. When I'm able to run 10 times 1000m in 2'48" recovering 1 min, for me is very easy, in short time, running 20 km at 2'58" and full marathon at 3'10"".

Going on with our experience, we applied this system with all italian runners, from Pizzolato to Poli, from Bordin to Bettiol, from Baldini to Caimmi to Giacomo Leone now.

Currently, long and slow run doesn't exist in a modern training program for marathon. Really, about 40-50% of the global volume is done with slow run (under 80% of Marathon Pace : for example, if you run a Marathon at 3'10" per km, 19" every 100m, 20% is 38", so running at 3'50" isn't a work, but regeneration run), but TRAINING FOR BUILDING YOUR PERFORMANCE BEGINS WHEN YOU RUN OVER 90% OF M.P. (from 3'30" going faster). Specific workouts for marathon are WORKOUTS LASTING MORE THAN 1:30:00 at a pace of 90% or better, and in any case never shorter than 22/24 km.

In our methodology (the same for Spanish runners), at first we try to lift Anaerobic Threshold (about 60-45 days before the marathon, difference between AT and AnT may be about 10%), then, maintaining the same intensity, we try to develop specific endurance.

In the modern concepts for middle distance, WE TRY TO DEVELOP THE POWER OF OUR ENGIN (that is Anaerobic Endurance) in the first 2 months of preparation, then TO DEVELOP SPECIFIC POWER-ENDURANCE GOING TO THE EXTENSION.

This is a system not only for marathon, but for all long distance. Of course, is yet possible to use the other system, but the capacity of intensity cannot stay long time without beeing stimulated, and is a mistake to permit that your quality can go down too much.

My interpretation of what Renato wrote is that traditional base training starting with and emphasizing long easy distance is not what he uses with his athletes. Some people will say "Well it's still aerobic first, just not long easy distance first" and I have no argument with that.

Here is something else that he wrote about his hill circuits:

I explain you the circuits that Shami uses. The phylosophy of circuits for strength endurance is always the same, but the stations depend on the situation of the place of training. In the case of Shami, he carries out his circuits in Eldama Ravine, a village 120 km far from Eldoret, with a lot of hills.

His circuits, that he must carry out at max intensity, are the following :

a) 120m bounding (flat)

b) 300m running fast (flat)

c) 20 sagittal splits on the place

d) 60m sprint climbing

e) 40m skipping climbing

f) 60m sprint climbing

g) 40m heels-to-buttocks climbing

h) 60m sprint uphill

i) 40m bounding climbing

l) 100m sprint climbing

m) 10 squat-jumps on the place

The circuits is carried out on a small hill, with 420m of flat rough road before starting 400m of hard hill. So, all is about 820m. After finishing, the athletes of the group WALK for about 300m downhill, going back to the start. One loop is about 1,120m.

Of course, if you have other options, you can change something. For example, with Rita Jeptoo I use something a little bit different : when we are 4-3 months far from the competition, her circuits are uphill only, for about 600m, and there is more attention for technical exercises, done at high intensity, while the run (about 80m climbing between every station) is at 80% of max speed. In this case, the current focus is for increasing strength and specific technical ability when tired. So, we use Aerobic Resistance in order to support STRENGTH ENDURANCE. Instead, during the last 2 months, we go to qualify the intensity of the sprints, and the exercises lose part of their importance. The final focus is to use strength for supporting AEROBIC POWER.

We use this type of preparation ALWAYS, after every Marathon, for recovering the personal level of strength, that during the specific period of preparation for a Marathon the athletes go in part to lose. But, in the case of Rita running Boston, that is a very hilly marathon, we maintain this type of training till last period, because to have strength endurance is one of the most important goals in order to finish with high speed (last year Rita ran 16:15 between 35 and 40k, and was the 4th performer in all the race (better than the top 8 men) from 40 to the finish). Don't forget the "heartbreak hill"....

Again, my interpretation is that Renato is not emphasizing long easy distance in the buildup to a marathon. The circuit stuff seems in direct contrast to something I read about Bill Rodgers saying that when his vertical jump was almost non-existant, he knew he had trained well and was ready for a good marathon.

Roelants was a tremendous runner who came to the marathon late in his career. As I recall injuries took him away from steeplechasing. Obviously the way he trained was very effective but he was not as good a marathoner as Ron Hill, who trained very differently. We're always left with the question of whether Roelants would have been a better marathoner if he'd trained like Hill or if Hill would have been even better if he'd trained like Roelants and no one will ever be able to answer that sort of question.

Renato has done very, very, well with the athletes he's coached. But they COME to him with best times that most other runners will never attain. So, no, they may not need a slow distance phase. That was sort of Lydiard's point about Africans when he said that anyone can coach a Kenyan.

And while it may be that Rodgers would have been even better at the marathon if he'd had a better vertical jump or done more long, hard marathon paced runs, it may also be that vertical jump is irrelevant to marathon success or is such a small part of it that it's not worth working on until you're trying to turn a 2:07 best into 2:04 or something and that he'd have overdone himself on long runs at near race pace.

All of these discussions about coaching methods give little or no consideration to the athletes actually carrying out the methods.

Today's top coaches are mostly westerners who go to Africa and coach athletes who have already approached world class performances. Coaches like Squires and Lydiard took local runners who were not even national class runners and turned some of them into world class runners.

I can't say that they'd have had the success with Africans that someone like Renato has. And I certainly can't say that Renato has had the kinds of success with beginning or near beginning non-western runners that Squires and Lydiard have had.

I'm happy you got some PR and I'm sure Antonio knows a thing or two and he seems to be knowledgeable enough on historical scene.

But, seriously, do you really think what he's going on and on here and what he's been doing over the YEARS to Lydiard and Lydiardites is fair and sane? He's fixated, he's obsessed and more than half of his claims don't even make sense. I mean, so what if Lydiard Foundation says Lydiard is perfect (which I don't think they do)? Do you really expect someone who's promoting something to say, well, it's a decent program/product, it works fine but not perfect for sure... Who would believe in it? Then what about letsrun? Is this really where "your dreams become reality"? Can we sue them if it didn't? If that's not crazy, I don't know what is.

I appreciate your acting as Antonio's spokesperson. Frankly I do not understand what the heck Antonio's trying to say most of the time and. from that, I have a hard time picturing him remotely understanding what he reads in English-nomely Lydiard literature.

Besides, if you understand Antonio so well, why did you have to ask him some of those "Joe" questions? And had any of them actually been answered to your satisfaction?

Or Antonio coming back to you by saying "I just build my own training" enough to satisfy you to understand Antonio "METHODOLOGY" that he "just builds his own training". That's not much of a METHODOLOGY to me.

Or is this yet another great example of what a great, personable, respectful guy Antonio is, responding to Mr. HRE with nothing but sarcasm and mockery?

HRE:

You make some great points. I can't find the post where Renato talks about how happy he was when he succeeded with an ordinary guy (who had a full time job and limited training time)getting him to run a pretty good marathon. Renato also wrote once why his stuff didn't work with his friends who were masters guys, because they couldn't recover from the intensity.

That hasn't stopped me from trying Renato's stuff (I'm no where near elite, never was, with crappy recovery from hard workouts, and I'm going to be 57 in March) and I can attest that his circuits in particular hurt like hell! I wholeheartedly agree with you that we'll never know if runner x would have been better or worse if he had trained like runner y. Wouldn't it be great to see Tommie Smith vs Michael Johnson vs Usain Bolt trying each other's training, or Coe doing Ovett's training and vice versa?

If Universal Sports can do a reality show on Ed Moses (the swimmer, not the hurdler) and his comeback, how about a spinoff of "Wife Swap" where track athletes swap coaches and training environments? Ryan Hall in Iten, Maryam Jamal in Mammoth, etc. Throw in a time lord and you can have Rudolf Harbig training in New Zealand with Lydiard! I know ventolin would watch the episode where Ryun trains with Renato.

Sorry, got a little off topic and carried away...

someone should just delete this thread