Lydiard Imitations

Sorry, but I can't really buy the argument that improved training is why people are so much faster today than they were 40-50 years ago. There are way too many other variables. As I wrote before, pacers, drugs, professionalism, performance bonuses all are huge factors as is the fact that a record sets the stage for the next record. Was Bannister really better trained than Hagg? It doesn't look it to me, but Hagg brought the 4:00 barrier closer and made it more conceivable.

I have never really been clear on which Italians from the glory years you coached. Honestly, information about that time seems pretty scant in English. If you ever got the urge to write a book or long article about that which got translated into English I'd buy it. I have seen a video of Bordin saying "Everything I did was Lydiard." I'm not saying that's what he did. I'm not even saying he meant it. I'm just saying I've seen it.

Finally, most people at Letsrun don't have the luxury of going off to another country and finding a new group of athletes to coach when the athletes with whom they'd previously worked aren't as competitive as they'd like. You may well have found something better than what's been done before, though it just doesn't look all that new to me, or you may simply have found better people with whom to use what you're doing.

I understand what you say i i don´t agree with you.

I´m not obsessed to post about Lydiard comment, and i don´t feel tired whatever. I´ve lear many things with this debate, and while centered on Lydiard we did cover many other interesting subjects from the training methodology.

I didn´t open one single thread about the Lydiard subject. Never. When someone like mr. Kershall one confess Lydiardist ask me to interview me about my training with the condition to not say nothing about Lydiard, i did respect his condition. In my and John 2 kind of runners i guess i jst refer once Lydiard but not to contest Lydiard.

I didn´t posts as many about Lydiard that HRE or some other. Just on this thread i did post quite the same as gypsy.

Besides, i post and i get a reply. If people doesn´t matter about my posts (while disagree) they wouldn´t reply and keep the conversation of the same subject. the difference it´s that i didn´t offend no one, but some others they did.

My suggestion is that if you don´t feel any interest on my read about Lydiard the easy one without deny my freedom it´s to skip it, miss it, don´t read.

On the past, people did the same kind of suggest that you did - go away from Lydiard debate, and the main argument it´s because i did post anonymous. Actually i post on identification. But did you read some others that they use to post when i was anonymous ?

About your suggest, to post about the portuguese training. i did it on the past, theerfore somwhow i did cover yiour suggest. I guess that what i did post it´s enough to understand that basics of the portuguese method. If you did read and it´s not enough for you, i can´t help you.

My own training method does just a few things similar with the portuguese one.

The main reason because my training it´s different than the portuguese one it´s because i did refine my training where the portuguese method didn´t nothing else to progress, because the portuguese method was built from the late 60s, early 70s up to the mid 80s and didn´t progress no more, It´s outdate in my opinion. Does no more dynamics that did. Something similar to what i think about Lydiard, but of course it´s recent e than the Lydiard one, therefore more interesting and not so outdate. Just my opinion.

What i did about the portuguese training - the information i did - i can do same about Lydiard training precisely. I feel as competent to write about Lydiard as about the portuguese method.

Finnaly one more aspect. Everyone that doesn´t understand Lydiard as i do - or that is confined to think about Lydiard as a good in-date training i´m - can´t understand the portuguese training as well, simply because the essential of the portuguese training methodology are opposed to the Lydiard one, or to put it different, the must of the Lydiard training, it´s the start of the portuguese method. Put it another way. For the portuguese method the aerobic condition is something vulgar and ordinary as distance training approach, for the portuguese method the aerobic training and the aerobic condition it´s not a conclusion or one man discover, it´s a universal scientific take for granted that every distance training method does know, before and after Lydiard. Therefore the aeropbic it´s not one condition to get, it´s from that take for granted aerobic condition that the training starts to be relevant and interesting as training debate and methodology discuss.

But what to discuss with the Lydiartdists about the portuguese training, if they think that intervals "oh, interval training, specific training, that doesn´t really matters, you might do as it pleases it works any-kind, do intervals by feeling by feeling". That kind of Lydiardist willn´t understand the need of interval accuracy, they willn´t see the reason why the interval length recovery really matters, or as Mr. Pete snell says in his interview that intervals in "ladder" (ladder=increasing or decreasing the distance of each set) that

doesn´t matter. With this confined and limited training understand with kind of training knowledge it´s impossible to understand the portuguese training.

HRE, I agree with you. Perhaps you have not seen this article on Renato:

Thanks Bob. I hadn't seen that.

I find this debate very interesting, and I don't know why all the Lydiard followers get so upset when people speak against your god. It makes for good debate and you are trying to stifle it.

I get upset when I hear Cabral and Canova try to legitimize what they are doing by always talking about fast runners. Canova does this more than Cabral. Cabral, though, tries to associate himself with good runners even though he wasn't their coach (Lopes, Mamede, Ruiz). I understand though, why they do it. Because few on here give anyone's ideas legitimacy unless they've coached fast runners, or written books. I've improved some runners to sub - 149 and sub 3:50 who didn't break 2:00 in HS, and have coached some HS runners to fast times who never ran much faster in college, but none of these athletes would give me enough legitimacy to influence training methodology in this country.

Interestingly, when I listen or read about Cabral or Canova's methodologies, I'm often astounded as to how similar it is to my system I've developed over the past 30 years. Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to coach many national class runners over the years as my career has gone a different path and I've only coached on the side.

What I've discovered and what have been backed up (somewhat) by these two, and some others is:

1) Periodizing by going from general to specific, rather than from aerobic to anaerobic.

2) Trying to keep all components in the program year around, but adjusting the percentages that these components are including. This is done by adjusting rests and intensities in interval training, volume and intensity in steady state runs and volume and intensity in other components like: plyometrics, footspeed and strength (through circuits, weights, and medicine ball). In the 800m and 1500m, I think strength is often overlooked. My opinion is that it should be periodized. We can learn a lot from the Olympic weightlifters on how to maximize strength, without increasing weight (hypertrophy).

3) Keeping a consciousness about recovery: This involves recovering one system while working another and lengthening the period of time between breakdown efforts. This is an area I'm always trying to obtain more information about. I think we all need to learn more about neural recovery vs muscular recovery. I feel I've never quite understood what type of recovery is needed for different aerobic intensities. The recovery from a marathon, to a 10000m to an 800m race is very different and I'm always interested to find out exactly what it is that is recovering and how we can maximize it. On LetsRun, we always talk about the breakdown (workout) but rarely talk about the science of recovery (which is just as important if not more important. My opinion is always to error on the side of too much recovery.

4) I'm an advocate on what Salazar does with trying to get more aerobic training in by maximizing the running and then supplementing with alternate methods of aerobic development. I believe that we should always have our athletes doing some other type of aerobic development. One other reason for this is in case of injury. Often when a runner gets injured, it will take him/her a while before they can get up to speed with the new modality of training (ie) bike, pool running, elliptical, etc). If this is always kept as a minimal part of training when healthy, the athlete will have an easier transition and get up to speed aerobically quicker.

I'm somewhat of a believer in Lydiard for the simple reason that I advocate high mileage for middle distance runners in the early part of the program. The reason for this is because it is not specific to middle distance rances and longer slower running is not even specific to marathons. But I'm a follower also of thos who like to keep all components in the program all year round. Full out sprinting is also not too specific to middle distance running, so this also must be developed early in the yearly program (not late). Some would say Lydiard also advocated this, some would not.

Too many coaches that I've seen simply go steadily from long and slow to short and fast. This does not follow the general to specific principle. I'm astounded as to what I see the US college coaches are doing with the kids I send them. They have all the resources, but continue to fail them.

800 coach 72,

You have brought up some good points and there is balance to your comment.

I will say though I think the idea of stifling a good argument is not accurate when statements such as:

- Lydiard is dated

- Lydiard is old

- "you Lydiardists/cultists..."

- Lydiard was wrong because....[end]

An argument or debate would include give and take of the method. When one person says, "I don't really know the Lydiard method, then says later, "I know the Lydiard method" and adds to the confusion by getting the method he thinks he knows wrong....then tells the people who do know the method well that they are wrong. Well we are dealing with a confused individual.

Now, go look at about all threads here on Lydiard. They all contain the same individual, making these same wrong assertions/accusations/uninformed statements etc.

It is an obessession.

Everything else you said though is spot on.

Antonio,Here's a "perfect" example of why, whatever your level of competence may be in training and coaching, I believe you are not competent to explain the Lydiard method. When I look at the Lydiard Foundation website, as you suggested, I do not find "Lydiard the perfect training"(sic), as you said I might. You might read it that way, but that is not what is written. What I find is that the Lydiard Method is a "perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic training". (It was also the case in April 2008).These are different statements. One says the method is perfect, while the other says how it combines different kinds of training is perfect. And neither one claims that Lydiard is a perfectionist. In other words, the way it "combines" training is "complete" or "completely suited for a particular purpose or situation". This makes sense in a Lydiard context, when you also know, that another major purpose is "to arrange all elements of training in a balanced way so you can peak on the day that requires". In other words, the way the training elements are combined allow you to peak on race day. The combination is perfectly suited for the purposes of peaking, and timing that peak for race day.You might think it's splitting hairs, over a subtle or insignificant difference in meaning, but this is one of several examples of how your misrepresentation of Lydiard is not the correct one, but a strawman. You pretend you're simply exercising your right to express a contradictory opinion, and think this is what must be annoying many Lydiardists. But I'm not annoyed by your contradictory opinions. I'm annoyed by your getting the facts wrong. I'm annoyed when your interpretations over-interpret, mis-interpret, or contradict what was actually written or said.Maybe you and many others have found ways to peak sooner, and longer, and higher, in the last 50 years. However, your comments repeatedly demonstrate that, for whatever combination of reasons, you are simply an unreliable and inaccurate source of any information about Lydiard.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

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.

snowden wrote:

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?

I sometimes act as an interpreter, especially when I think I see a gross misunderstanding. I see misunderstandings happening both ways. I prefer that someone gets criticized for what they meant to say. I think I know Antonio's style and position, and English, well enough to know when he is serious, and when he is sarcastic, and sometimes what he wants to say, even when it is fractured and incomplete.

But that's a good question. If I know Antonio's ideas so well, why did I ask him about Joe? I think I understand many of Antonio's comments about training methodologies, but my initial question to Antonio regarding "Joe", was actually to see if Hadd had changed his mind about how he trained "Joe".

Recall in this thread:

- Antonio reduces Lydiard to simply "aerobic first"

- Antonio and Hadd have collaborated privately for some time (several years?), resulting in a unique, shared private thread on letsrun

- Trying to avoid talking about Lydiard to Antonio, and because I knew of this extensive private exchange, I mentioned something about the aerobic approach in Hadd's Phase 1, and how the famous "Joe" thread emphasizes the importance of "aerobic first", at least for Joe who hadn't trained for 5 years. I don't know many details of Hadd's later phases, so I never want to imply that Lydiard and Hadd have the same approach to training.

- Antonio represents that Hadd has some objections to Lydiard's training, and that Antonio and Hadd are actually not so different, when it comes to training methodology. Their main difference is one of personality: Hadd is polite, modest, and helpful.

- One of the very first things I read at "letsrun" was the famous "Joe" thread, which looks very much like a recommendation for "aerobic first", at least once in a lifetime, and for someone like Joe, once again after an extended break in training. In fact, the thread detailed 20 weeks of aerobic training, and indicated that the aerobic training was only half way there. My math says 40 weeks of "aerobic first" training. I read this thread way before anything from Lydiard, or Antonio.

- But the "Joe" thread was written in 2003, before this extensive collaboration, before any potential influence from Antonio

So my initial curiosity was, given Antonio's representation that he and Hadd now basically have the same methodology, did Hadd have a change of heart and mind, since 2003, about "aerobic first" development for Joe? Since unfortunately Hadd can no longer answer the question, I thought maybe something in the extensive private exchange would give Antonio some insight that he could share here.

Antonio politely thanked me for the question, but nevertheless avoided giving a direct response.

So I attempted to rephrase the question, if someone like Joe came to him, in this special case, would he also take a similar "aerobic first" approach like Hadd had? Or would it look completely different? Or something in between?

Antonio also refused to answer this question, because he would need to know Joe and his history. Fair enough.

I haven't been upset at all and don't care what people criticize. But if someone is criticizing something they should show that they understand what they're criticizing.

If someone says that Lydiard never coached a marathoner faster than 2:18, for example, when he had a 2:10 guy and several others who were faster than 2:18 I will point out the mistake.

If someone says Lydiard is outdated because we know now that it's a mistake to spend a long period of time away from your racing speeds I will acknowledge that this is a criticism that has always followed Lydiard's approach but I will also point out that it's not a "modern" criticism precisely because the criticism was there in the 60s when his methods became known.

Renato Canova wrote:

The real difference between Lydiard and Igloi, for example, is that Lydiard wrote some book and was of English mother tongue, and Igloi was Hungarian. But their influence in the history of methodology really was the same, such as Van Aaken or Gerschler or Reindell. And, of course, every coach has learnt something from everybody of these MASTERS of methodology. But, I repeat, what we can do today is something different from what they did 40-50 years ago (and the improvement of times clearly shows this situation).

Renato,

Have any new masters written a book in English in the last 20 years, that discusses recent changes in training methodology, like the contributions from Lydiard, Igloi, Van Aaken, Gerschler, Reindell, and other masters?

How does a coach find out more about what we can do today, with our own athletes, without taking a coaching position at a national training center, or attending IAAF conferences?

Everyone,

we are on page 27. Have we finished the preliminaries? Time for some actual discussion?

Personally i would like some talk of principles, which is really the Philosophy of Sport. we could talk about methodologies, break them down into their components and look at relationships between these components. We could directly analyse the structure of some training programs. We could delve historically for information. We can use the language of science to talk physiology or biomechanics, or psychology. We can draw parallels with other sports and other physical arts.

But i would really like to do something that leads somewhere concrete, as concrete as we can make when analysing something formless and invisible.

Perhaps we could invent case studies and put forward different analyses of these situations. Each person from their own perspective, all the time looking at the why's of our decision making.

Or should we move into p28 discussing politics further?

I'm not sure why i'm sounding like a nob, all forceful with my opinions. Anyone got an idea?

Well Gypsy in respect to your original post that started this thread, you wrote "...with like minded people"

I coached the running portion of a triathlete who went to the World Military Games this year. She is newer to multi-sport - just a few years in - nearly middle-aged and went into training with a haematoma (sp) that hampered her. I am not going to say much about her youth, but it was not conducive to healthy living that's for sure. She finished mid-pack and had run pbs throughout her race schedule.

The main ingredients to her training was AT and sub-AT running and easing towards a sharp peak.

Volume was up to just over 70 miles per week on top of her cycling and swimming.

2 semi-long runs per week - 80/90 minutes at a steady effort

1 long run per week - up to 3:00 hours, but she hated that, so several were just over two hours.

The easy running she did was very slow recovery running.

One fartlek session per week

One strides session on a soccer field per week

No days off when possible

Altered hill phase done primarily with the classic hill circuit, but mostly on a trail with cedar chips. The peak training was short and not too hard, did not want to flare up the scar tissue/hematoma thing with too hard hill work or too much sprinting.

So plenty of AT/sub-AT and easy and small amount of V02 max and glycolitic-anaerobic.

Worked so well we could tell what she would run ahead of time.

I am not a fast runner I might one day run a 10k in about 35, but the best so far was 37. I applied the Lydiard principles on myself, after 5 years of producing the exact same results, I dropped all my pbs from 5k x 3, 8k x 2, 10 x2, half marathon x2 in a 4 month span. Currently dealing with recovery from surgery....so I have to wait to go at it again...

...but saying that, that schedule was to the "t" the classic Lydiard schedule, but because my average weekly mileage was around 66/68 and peak around 88/90 if I remember correctly, I couldn't do too much bounding and kept the anaerobic phase to 3 weeks.

I really made a good effort with AT and V02 max stuff though. Really enjoyed 2 & 3 mile time trials.

Clarification:

I did not think I could do a lot of volume of hill work or anaerobic training, because my average volume throughout was not that high...again just under 70 miles per week.

Interesting point this one of Ron versus Gaston.

John Hadd told me that he did spend many times with the Ron Hill and inclusively lived in the Ron Hill house. About Ron Hill he told me that “Ron is very friendly and the icon of amateurship, but HE JUST DON`T KNOW HOW TO TRAIN PROPERLY”. His run digest is just “get tired everyday on”.

You are right HRE, that we just can speculate with what Roelants would done with Ron Hill training and what Ron would done with Gaston training.

But we know one thing. If we consider the entire career and every distance event – not just the marathon that Ron was specialist – ROELANTS WAS BEEN ONE MUCH BETTER AND MORE SUCCESS that RON DIDN`T. Ron did WR in the steeple, gold in the Olympics, did win 5 nations cross country (that actually is World cross country), did win 4 times the S. Silvester New year S. paulo Brazilain road run that is considered the early unofficial world road champ, did a very long career, win over the e wold best did start to run at international level with 18 years old and finishes his long career with Belgium team selection at 44 years old !

Ron Hill, was a better marathoner than Roelants, you are right. I remember that one that Ron Hill did smash Roelants on the Athens marathon on the European champs. Do you remember ?

But with the exception of the marathon that did smash Ron Hill in European champs in Athens – do you remember

Roelants was very gentle. Once (in 1974) I asked him what he taught about Ernest van Aaken. He did smile and said “I know much better than no one what to do with my body, how to train, better than any famous coach or any rich training method. My experience teach me that if I train very hard or longer than I can handle, I will be injured”.

This is the clue to answer to your question of different training methods. Each one, Hill and Roelants did train differently mainly because they got different talent profiles and different innate physical characteristics.

Maybe i had to go into battle mode a bit for a while.

I like these situations, especially when the coach is able to describe it with such intimacy, which you can only get by being truly interested.

I too have a story which is interesting in a Lydiard way. Someone i don't quite know well enough to call a friend yet, but someone i'm definitely friendly with, coaches this young guy. I had known them for years back to when both were coached by their original coach. Original coach was fantastic and he leaned towards interval training along the lines of modern interval training year round, which of course i am against. As time moved on and so did original coach, the older athlete became the new coach, whilst the young athlete continued this training approach with a high degree of success. And then i may as well quote what the coach said: (i received permission to reprint it)

As a junior his pr was 3:39 and the year later dropped it to 3:36 off those 3 months of base training. (I realise the numbers shouldn't matter but they do add weight. We are trapped by statistics!)

This feat was achieved off the first ever base mileage period in his career, without any intervals and any peaking at all. And in the process it seems to have converted one coach from one training approach to another, or at least taken a step in that direction. I had been talking to him about Lydiard for quite a while, yet his interest in me remained in my understanding of posture and technique. Then this experience of his main athlete and a new idea opens up, simply because something happened that was seemingly inexplicable. Well almost, it could only be explained one way, that Lydiard was right.

On the past, when the Lydiardist was questioned about main reason why the Lydiard training did produce so many huge success, from great success on a bunch of kids of the block on NZ - from the late 60s to the early 70s up to the 80s – and then to the international level of success – like the Finns runners in the 70s – the Lydiardist argument is that they were so good mainly because they follow the Lydiard training. Consequently, the main reason why Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Dick Taylor, Viren, Jonh Walker they are good because of the rich Lydiard training, not because some genetic advantage or specific talent. The Lydiard said the best they got some talent, but it´s the Lydiard training the main reason to success. Even the Ethiopian Abebe Bikila that was coached by one Swedish coach that follows the Lydiard method, the reason of Bikila success is the rich training, Lydiard training did the difference.

As the time passes by, the fact is that on the present less and less number of Lydiard runners got the same huge success than some others out of the Lydiard method and this is deceiving for the Lydiard method.

From that deceiving fact what the Lydiardist does say ?

He moves the argument of Lydiard rich training being the main reason of success of the Lydiard method the other reason from every other method out of Lydiard does produce. The recent to today´s success of that methods out of Lydiard it´s because they got talented runners to coach.

The recent Lydiard argument is that the Africans are very good, Renato takes the world´s best, the African runner is a superior talent, and also another fake argument “the mind, the will” it´s what really matters, and the training is just a minor part of the performance”.

On the past when someone else argues that might be the Finns did some superior innate talent to run, or that Pete Snell would be successful with every other training method because relate to that periods Peter Snell was very talented, the Lydiardist just deny that hypothesis. It´s just rich Lydiard training – they say.

Actually, as far as the Lydiard method is less and less success, the argument did move to marginal and transversal hypothesis as the present one.

The today´s Lydiardist says it´s “the mind” what most influence the result, not the training and the main reason why one Renato, one Kostre, one James Li and many other coaches that did use different methods than the Lydiard eventually they got success with their runners because they deal with runners of world top success.

Actually for the Lydiardist it´s not the training method no more, it´s just the talent and the mind ! Very funny that different approach of argument from the Lydiardist !

For instance Rod Dixon did win NY marathon and he did Lydiard, then he did win because it´s the Lydiard training, but when one Marilson Gomes dos Santos Brazilian wins the NY marathon twice (2006 and 2008), wining over Africans the Lydiardist says it´s not training, it´s talent. Training is just when it´s a Lydiard runner.

However I know several East African runners that uses Lydiard. Apparently they got so much talent as some others. But why they don´t got so many success from the Lydiard method that some others did on the past ? The main reason it´s that today we got better indate methods than the Lydiard one.

The main reason why Lydiard runners didn´t make as high percent of the success than the past is because on the past the Lydiard was the top of the distance training methods, for a period Lydiard was side-by-side with the world´s best methods, but on the present doesn´t.

Deleted after that I did post about it.

It´s Lydiard revisionism after my insistence. You can go way back and to this forum and you will read that many Lydiardists did stand to fight me when I posts that Lydiard isn´t perfect.

I just reply to the post sentence “…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…”

If you open that LF site you be able to read what´s Lydiard and what isn´t. But this is different than the 4 bullets of Lydiard principles by Mr.Nobby and Lorraine revisonism . All is resumed to: Aerobic development, Feeling-based, Response regulated, Sequential training pattern and Peaking.

As you see it´s not unusual to change from “the perfect training” to this last version “…"perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic training".

However how it´s possible that the aerobic combination of but the training it´s not perfect ? No way.

About Joe question, I can ´t answer or imagine how John Hadd would coach Joe today. I´m not in the mind of the other, and since he died, we can´t ask him or know.

What I know is that he changed in many ways about his early training version and the Joe training posts and the late one. I Know because he told me. From this fact to be able to answer your question how he would train Joe on the present – I don´t know.