LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Wizzkid,

I think you have a good perspective. Arthur did in fact tell his middle distance track to run and develop endurance and stamina by running long miles. That was very different than what the other runners of the day were doing. Why else would Snell, the slowest man over 400 meters have been able to run down those speedsters? It is the same issue that puzzles us Americans when we think about how dominant American 400 meter runners are and how unable we are at producing world class 800 meter runners. They are not training to be able to carry their speed over 800 meters, they lack endurance not speed.

So Arthur's contribution was to get middle distance runners to develop endurance and stamina to be able to do higher volumes of quality work and dominate the middle distances.

Glenn

Wizzkid, you finally joined us!!! Hahahahahaha! Great to see you here.

I apologise for my contribution towards having the last several posts as Lydiard only, not Lydiard / Daniels. But, I suppose we must try to understand both as much as possible before we can touch on differences, right?

jtupper, hope you are still with us. :) A very good friend of mine, who has maintained his peak form into his 39th year, has followed the Daniels approach for many many years. We've just touched on long term seasonal survival (thanks Wizzkid). How about long term careers? Has Lydiard and Daniels taken this into account in a big way? (Of course, I believe the answer is very definitely yes, but what sorts of things must we look at in training in order to ensure retirement doesn't arrive at 26, and how do Lydiard and Daniels promote this very long term carreer concept?)

Skuj, can you explain what the Daniels method is?

Waaay back in 1973 I once actually corresponded with a Jack Daniels who was featured in R/W. Daniels listed for me potential PR's based on my marathon PR and also based on my age, height, weight, and how much I was running, my possible Vo2 Max. I was wondering how this was possible. It may or may not have been the same J. Daniels?! Probably was. Daniels talks about cruise intervals etc. as being a key way to train.

To get the most out of oneself for a running season it all comes down to the base work, lots of sensibly paced miles with a sensible buildup (the 10% rule). Run races in the buildup period without 'going for glory' Those races will happen when the base work is there and the intervals/speed work are being done.

Skuj,

My summary of the Lydiard method starts with the fact that he recognized that aerobic fitness is the basis of all superior performances. Some people have naturally higher levels of aerobic fitness than most others and don't have to work as much on developing it. Some, and Arthur always mentioned Africans, have a way of life (jogging or walking several miles to school, chasing goats, walking everywhere rather than being driven, etc) that naturally develops aerobic capacity. But most people need to do a lot of work on developing their aerobic fitness and the best way to do that is to run a high volume of miles. One hundred of those a week is a good ballpark figure. But there are people like Kim Stevenson who followed Arthur's ideas quite successfully and never ran 100 miles in a week and there are people like Jeff Julian, Richard Tayler and me (notice how I manage to make myself like these other guys?) who frequently went to 150 and beyond.

Once the aerobic fitness is developed, it's time to balance out your running with types of work that get progressively harder, faster, and more like what you'll do when racing.

Arthur laid out one way of doing all of this in his books. But what Glen, Kim, Nobby, and I are all saying is that once you understand why each of the things he put into his system are there, you can mix and match them to suit your own needs or the needs of whomever you're advising.

Yes, many of us Lydiard folks look at the training of almost all successful runners and say that it looks like the Lydiard method. What we're really saying is that as far as we can tell, that training addresses all of the elements that Arthur thought you needed and does so in a properly balanced way. We don't really know what inspired all of them to train the way they do. But we will tell you that Arthur pretty much standardized the way people train. To try to understand modern training without understanding Arthur's approach is like trying to understand german philosphy without understanding Goethe, or as Malmo's said, understanding physics without understanding Einstein. But that doesn't mean that others can't have original thoughts or adaptions. It just means that they've probably begun understanding training by looking at what someone successful has done and that if you trace that inspiration back far enough, it probably leads to someone who looked at Lydiard.

So briefly, I'd summarize Lydiard by saying, 1. Develop aerobic fitness. 2. Once that's done, begin to introduce training that's progressively more race specific. The addendums to these two steps would be descriptions of the various ways of accomplishing step 2.

Wizz, I am a Daniels neophyte! I'd better leave the explaining to others. I bet that was him in 1973...perhaps he remembers you? :)

HRE, I'll slowly digest your last....

Thanks everyone. Great thread.

Long term career? Another issue! A lot of runners, potentially good runners would have more difficulty than others through not so fortunate biomechanics (I was one of them) progressing up to 100 mpw. For the record I occasionally came close to 100, mostly hovered around 55 - 70 mpw but a lot of it was solid near tempo pace. Raced year round.

A well-known local coach (Skuj U know who I mean) years ago had one of his best university distaff X-Country runners do the bulk of her training, pool running 1 hr. - 1 1/2 hr. at a time. A lot of her real running was doing shorter faster stuff (rumoured she only ran 12 - 20 mpw). This method for her did pay off. She was able to get around some chronic injury problems due to some poor biomechanics.

If you talk about a long-term development, Lydiard's got to be IT. He didn't care what you'd do in the race next week or next month; but always when you actually peak. When he was in Japan in 1991, he was asked about this young athlete who became the first high school runner to break 14 minutes for 5000m. He didn't really care too much but simply said, "He's obviously a very talented young kid. But the question is 'What would he be doing in 10-years time?'"

Almost everybody I talked to in New Zealand (Lydiard original runners, that is) pointed out this long-term development. They were following the Lydiard type "cycle" you might way twice a year; one for cross country and one for track; and you build up on it. One of them told me about one of his runners who came in something like 30th in Auckland champs (XC) one year and the following year finished 3rd in NZ champs. Barry Magee told me how it took him 5 years with Lydiard before he won the bronze medal in Rome; 7 years before he set the world leading 5k and 10k time.

I have been using this term "whether you 'squeeze' performances out of your athletes or develop them naturally so the times will come naturally." The excess use of intervals and/or repetitions can squeeze good performance out of you for a year or two. But without solid aerobic base, that's where you end up. I see it sooo many occasions in this country. The times HS kids run in this country, compared, say, with Japan are phenomenal! So much talent in this country. As Lydiard ALWAYS said, "Where are they now?" And what are we doing wrong?

By the way, great analysis, HRE!

Ditto Nobby, Rich. Good analysis.

As HRE said I have never run 100 miles a week BUT as I have said on this forum before, I believe one of the key factors to Arthur's ideas are the long runs.

I would always run at least one long run every week (20 miles plus). One year I ran 22 consecutive weeks of 20 milers. No significance to that other than the course I ran at the time!!!

I have diaries which showed I ran 3000 miles a year. When you have done that for 4 or 5 years it gives a good Aerobic

Base to operate from.

It’s too late to train under Lydiard, so to understand him you just need to listen to Nobby, Kim, Glen, HRE and others who knew him. It’s no coincidence that those who knew him are such staunch defenders. You only had to spend a little time with the man to see the brilliance. I, for one, have never met anyone else like him.

Likewise, he had the ability to make very fast, but accurate assessments about a runner. He could predict future performances with frightening accuracy. Last November, he watched me run past at the 17 mile mark of a marathon. I was still on a decent pace at that point, but he sensed trouble and to my wife and friends, predicted my (somewhat disappointing) finish time within 3 seconds. I have heard many, many examples of how he could do that. For example, predicting the first 2:05 marathon - almost to the day - something like 30 years ago.

I recently interview several of his best runners in New Zealand. They all told me how he could make changes to their training that would break them out of a slump or get them to peak at just the right moment. He could always sense what they needed at any given moment. They never blindly followed schedules, though, of course, they had patterns they worked in. He put schedules in books for the same reason that everyone else does - you HAVE TO. The important thing is to understand the principles behind the schedules.

I guess the point I am making is, that Arthur was, in my opinion, one of, if not THE most brilliant mind to turn toward our sport. I put my trust in his ideas and I have not been disappointed.

Now, all of this takes nothing away from Dr. Daniels. We owe him a great deal too. His scientific approach is proven and invaluable. His many successful athletes are always ready to sing his praises.

This thread has been really great. Thanks Skuj for shaking things up and keeping these guys on their toes!

Do we, as a group, think that Snookie is still reading all this or do we think he's gone? I'm saying he must be intrigued by the size of his thread that he still checks.

HRE:

I just had to include this comment. HRE, you are...YOU! Love your sense of, well, whatever you call that!

Hotlanta:

Were you this big of a fan of Arthur when you call my cell phone when I was at Portland airport, heading for Japan (okay, I'm exeggerating a bit...)? Or did you become one after you met the old man? You would become even a bigger fan once you really get to know him. He was a GOOD man...in and out of athletics.

But personal touch aside; I think the biggest thing with Lydiard is "common sense" or "what makes sense". There are so many things in life we go through without thinking much about whether it makes sense or not. Making a sudden switch from long slow(er) distance work to stressful hill training ("just because it didn't say anything else otherwise in the book!") is one (I'm not making fun of anybody; believe me, I've done that and paid the price too!).

Lydiard, naturally, taught me a lot of things. I was watching Fukuoka marathon with well-established coach in late 1980s. Nakayama took off with the opening 5k of something like 14:35! Huge lead. It was raining and very cold. People were talking about the world record. I was checking out how much the second guy was closing... He ran well with 2:08:20 or something. But that's not the way to set the marathon world record (same as running a good 800m!). But that's common sense, isn't it? We know science now (thanks to people like Daniels). There are a lot of faulse information out there as well, but with the light of common sense, which Lydiard always talked about, things become a bit more clear. We know we need to have a good aerobic base; we know how we can best develop it; I have a harder time trying to comprehend why some people still argue it's better to sprint hell out of yourself with something like 25 miles per week training??? It just doesn't make sense to me...

Nobzilla (I like that - I'm picturing you stomping on buses and shooting flames out of your mouth!)

I've been a Lydiard fan for many years, though I wasn't as informed as I thought I was. Getting to know him turned me into a disciple.

Hotlanta:

In case you didn't know, I already do those things...? I think Arthur had a bigger and hotter flames from his mouth though.

Yeah. We're still getting the char marks off the kitchen walls from your visit last April. And you just can't get yourself to say that you love my sense of humor, can you, because you know that humor is supposed to be funny and I'm just not quite there.

Races and Lydiard: What was his general philosophy:

How many per year for middle distance people versus Marathoners?

What kinds of racing is allowed in base / transition period? (I know Kiwi touched on this.)

How many Marathons per year max?

Is a Half Marathon / 10k race good prep for Marathons? How close to a Marathon should one race Half / 10k?

Is longer racing good prep for 800-1500?

................................................

I asked these questions at that local chatline metioned above. I'd also like to ask the similar questions of Daniels philosophy.

I tell many who I coach: Pick a max of 12 races a year. With tears in your eyes, cut this one and that one, etc.

Superb thread. Really enjoyed HRE post on general Lydiard philosophy, and would like to ask permission to copy it to the other page.

Cheers

Skuj

[quote]Hotlanta Master wrote:

Nobzilla (I like that - I'm picturing you stomping on buses and shooting flames out of your mouth!)

__________

For the record, I think I'm the one who brought this nickname into the thread, which Nobby will now spend a lifetime trying to shake. :>)

I've been enjoying Mike Sokowlski (sp?) blog about running a Lydiard program with all the demands of job and family. He and I both seem to run at 5AM on weekdays. But I have to admit to being a bit humbled: he seems to run 18-milers on weekday mornings, and I rarely get past 9 until the weekend. Oh well, world needs slowpokes too.

Question: anyone have any particular spring marathons you're either running or travelling too (I know Nobby was at Boston last year as a journalist)?

Spider - I plan to run Boston.