Lydiard Imitations

snowden,

Well it cuts it for me -- I think I know what I would do, and I don't need Antonio's answers that badly -- but feel free to pick up the questions for yourself.

You're partly right. Sometimes I can be generous. I guess I did forget my original question (which was way back on page 17, 2 weeks ago) was already targeted towards Antonio, and what he would do:

+-----

If "aerobic first" represents a stupidity in your opinion:

1) What is the rationale for spending six months of "aerobic first" training with Joe, a proven athlete who was out of form, before moving on to later phases? Is that too long? Hadd finished that series by saying that after six months, they were only half way there.

2) What would you have prescribed for Joe? How long would you have stayed in an "aerobic only", base building phase, if at all, before introducing complexity and non-linear development?

+-----

But if he says he needs to know the athlete, I think it's an important point, even if it looks like a cop-out. For example, is he more ST or more FT? What was his running history (how many years? how many miles/week, etc.) before the 2:27? What kind of training did he do before, and what does he respond to best? What does he like to do? How much time does he have to train? ...

Maybe Antonio prefers real life situations over theoretical ones.

Regarding Antonio's exchanges with Hadd, I don't think it's bad-mouthing Hadd to say that Hadd shared some of the same Lydiard criticisms.

It's a shame that Antonio/Hadd did not have time to produce their planned "Running Manifesto". It certainly would have been interesting to see Hadd explain, in plain English, their "shared view" of the latest training concepts and critics to the Lydiard method.

gypsy,

Looks like your stimulus is not getting much response. I'm having trouble understanding the diagram, and what it's supposed to say. When I've seen super-compensation discussed, there is usually a graph like this one:

taken from

Then the tricky part is to time the next training when the new fitness level is higher, and not too soon, or too late. Here is a guide credited to Pete Pfitzinger (table at bottom), about recovery days between different kinds of workouts:

I found more "principles" here (2 new ones):

He describes 3 principles he keeps in mind, when creating new schedules:

1) SAID (specific adaption to imposed demand)

2) Supercompensation (also with a similar graph)

3) Progressive overload

The first one is interesting (and not to be confused with specificity), as it reminds the coach that everyone is different and may respond differently to the same training (or may need different training to get the same response).

The third one also reminds us that as we accumulate training and fitness, we need to increase the training load to achieve further adaptations.

Hodgie-san:

Here is something else that Renato wrote a while ago:

Training by Renato Canova:

I cannot follow all the single questions, so i prefer to continue in explaining my phylosophy. Now, for example, because you can understand my training system(not only mine, but is the Italian School of Marathon), I want to show you a table about different speeds, and the connected types of work. (MP is Marathon Pace)

Over 110 % of MP * Short distances with intervals

(ex. 10 x 500m rec. 1'30")

110 - 108% of MP * Intensive specific endurance

(ex. 10/12 km of intervals

long 1000/3000m with rec. 500m)

108 - 105% of MP * Intensive-extensive spec. endurance

(12-16 km with intervals from

2000 to 5000m)

* Progressive fast run (20' - 40')

105 - 103% of MP * Extensive specific endurance

(15-23 km with intervals from 3000

to 7000m)

* Steady fast pace runs (20' - 40')

103 - 97% = MP * Marathon Pace (races 18-25 km)

* Progressive medium-fast run

(from 45' to 1 hr 20')

* SPECIFIC INTENSIVE LONG (28-30 km)

97 - 95% MP * Steady medium-fast pace runs

(from 45' to 1 hr 20')

* SPECIFIC EXTENSIVE RUN (32-36 km)

95 - 92% MP * Progressive medium run

(1 hr - 1 hr 30')

* SPECIFIC EXTENSIVE RUN (36-45 km)

92 - 90% MP * Medium run (1 hr - 1 hr 30')

* SPECIFIC VERY EXTENSIVE RUN

(40 - 52 km)

90 - 85 % MP * Marathon endurance (2 hr - 3 hr)

85 - 80 % MP * Slow runs

Under 80% MP * Regeneration

You can see how very little difference in speed are considered a different medium of training. Training is like a stairs, whith many stairs that have to be run without skipping anything.

From this type of consideration belongs the MODULATION of a marathon runner, different depending on periods and personal situations.

What I get is that Renato is making a distinction between 11 different paces all quantified as a percentage of marathon pace. What I also get from this is that Renato believes the distinctions are important. Finally, I think Renato is saying that the right training is prescribed for a particular athlete at a particular time. To me this is very different from Bill going over to the track, doing portions of the interval workouts that other folks happen to be doing that day, and continuing until he has run for about an hour.

Hodgie-san, you say the differences are not significant. To Renato they are, otherwise he would tell Rop to do what Bill did! I'm sure Renato has a better explanation of why the differences are significant to him.

Hodgie-san, I have the utmost respect for your great career. Furthermore, you actually witnessed and participated in lots of important training and racing events that I have only read about or heard about or seen on video.

I'm just a guy trying to understand why 2:05 is the new 2:10 and why 2:02 is just around the corner. I happen to think it's more due to improved training than anything else.

Hey Rek, i realised i missed a lot of your previous post i answered to and have started making a reply, but it became long and i'm shortening it as we speak, then i became bored with myself so stopped and saw this.

The (draft) diagram:

Stimulus which 'can' lead to overload creates a response which 'can' lead to a compensation. As you create an ever increasing stimulus it will eventually get to the point where overload occurs. So there are two stages - the stimulus only stage and the overloaded stimulus stage. There are also two stages in the response side of the equation. Once the stimulus is removed we begin to heal the damage back to pre-session levels; this is stage one. Stage two is the compensation stage, where we go beyond the previous levels.

The progressive principle runs through the entire process along the top. Recovery along the bottom is required for the response mechanism to work.

And the super compensation for me is when multiple compensations are occurring concurrently to create the 'super' compensation. Why the word 'super' is being used to describe normal compensation is not making sense to me. Those diagrams are just showing me normal compensation. You overload your body and it compensates. Super is unnecessary and misleading and should be dropped from the nomenclature in this case.

Pete Pfitzinger

Looking at Pfitzy's three principles, he states: "The principle of specificity states that the body will adapt best to racing when it is trained at racing speed." This is a reduction of the Specificity Principle, and it the common mistake of every race-pace methodology coach. However, he then goes on to describe his SAID principle, which sounds like he is just analysing Specificity to me and quite well done. His SAID is actually descriptive of my Specificity.

His super-compensation is my compensation precisely and his overload is the same as my overload, however i make a distinction between stimulus and overload, as we don't need to overload every time to create the best result. In fact it is counterproductive to do so and probably leads to overtraining and a reduction in performance instead.

I would argue that balance needs to be included and made the primary principle. All of these other principles are derived from the principle of balance. To explain, our body is in a particular balance at any given point in time. When we apply a stimulus to the level where it creates overload, we are effectively taking our body out of balance. We have messed with our stasis, our homeostasis. The body then wants to get back to balance as the principles of homeostasis operate. It won't come back to the previous levels because the body is of the understanding that it will be required to undertake that same stimulus again. So it will prepare for it, by going a little beyond the previous state. Without balance operating none of this happens, so i see it as prior to the other principles, and it could be said this is the primary principle, it comes first.

Thanks for the effort to help my understanding SFM. I believe that there is only so much volume and intensity that any athlete of any era can do. BR did all of that in his era.

I see much the same where you are seeing "significant" differences. Also different methods do bring about the same results, depends how the individual responds to any given training stimulus.

Improved training methods? Perhaps more efficient methods? I do not believe so. Only faster performnces raising the bar for the athletes to seek to improve. More a psychological battle.

gypsy wrote:

Hey Rek, i realised i missed a lot of your previous post i answered to and have started making a reply, but it became long and i'm shortening it as we speak, then i became bored with myself so stopped and saw this.

Funny, Rek was my brother's nickname in high school, but that's OK -- just brings back memories.

I was still stuck on my question, what principles did you want to talk about, so I added a few more principles to the potential set of interesting candidates to throw out a few more starting points.

Note the "3 principles" I gave came from the Connecticut Running camp, not from Pete Pfitzinger. Pete Pfitzinger provided a practical table of recovery times.

The link says something important, that we should not confuse the SAID and the specificity principles. I want to avoid getting lost in the terminology. They are not the same, and may even contradict each other in some cases. I think most people (here) understand specificity the way it's explained in the link, as training linked to race pace and distance. The SAID principle (do the training that you respond to) is behind warnings, such as "the sample schedules are only a guide", precisely because some athletes will respond well, and others will require a modified approach. It also reminds me of the "2 kinds of runners" thread, who needs different training to achieve the same effect.

The "super" in super-compensation means that your body over-reacts to the stimulus, actually leaving you stronger than the initial state before the stimulus.

I always thought that what causes over-training is repeated inadequate recovery before the next stimulus, interfering with the initial recovery/compensation before it's had a chance to increase the fitness level.

I agree that balance has to be in there somewhere. Of course if there is a consistent and continuous state of imbalance, somehow by definition, the training will be sub-optimal or counter-productive.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

I'm just a guy trying to understand why 2:05 is the new 2:10 and why 2:02 is just around the corner. I happen to think it's more due to improved training than anything else.

If it's due to improved training, then the next thing to figure out is why the improved training is not helping non-East African athletes reach 2:05. What is holding western athletes back? Psychology? Opportunity? Motivation?

ok rekrunner it is, don't want to stir up too many memories, that's already the main problem with this thread.

Ok this is the problem that i began and came unstuck with. I am trying to link language between how i perceive my principles and how they might be described in terms that are familiar to runners. The linking between the two has led me to start defining my own principles, which is a philosophical treatise it seems, so i am trying to reduce the concepts down to a simpler form. Possibly an opener would be the place to start.

[quoe]Note the "3 principles" I gave came from the Connecticut Running camp, not from Pete Pfitzinger. Pete Pfitzinger provided a practical table of recovery times.[/quote]my mistake thanks; so this is what is taught as modern training theory is it? Is this an example?

I can't accept SAID as a principle and treat it as separate to specificity. That description of SAID is 'a' description of the Principle of Specificity. The definition of specificity given in that article is not. I don't know when people started thinking of specificity as relating only to race pace. How did this reductionism occur and then become widespread?

See i don't get this because nobody i work closely with would agree. However, if modern training wants to reduce specificity down to being limited to race pace then we have found the biggest nail in its coffin. Until this is removed so understanding about specificity can broaden, then burnout syndrome will not lessen.

Specificity means to be specific to the athlete and to the event (and not just the race pace - even this subcategory is broader then that). It means specific to the age and state of development they are at,. It means specific to the time of year, with the recent and historical training they have had, with an eye to upcoming competitions to be undertaken, with any individual idiosyncracies they might have etc etc ad infinitum. Strange that the original principle says all of this, yet modernists have changed the original meaning and now invented an acronym to replace it. This is the wrong way to go. How are people going to allow their philosophical mind to ponder an acronym. This isn't going to lead anyone to understand the principle as it is, in it's pure form. Bleh ...

I just don't like that word super, it's misleading, so if we have to use super-compensation it is definitely something different to normal standard compensation. Also, there isn't actually an over-reaction, there is an appropriate reaction, it is just the appropriate reaction is to over-shoot, probably because of the elastic effect, hence the mixup with the word over.

Yes this is one half of the equation. The other half is the over-intensity of the training. People just get the balance out of whack, but its a codependent relationship between training intensity and recovery time of course. You want to up the intensity, then you gotta allow for longer recovery. Every problem i see is linked to too much and too little, too much intensity and too little recovery. Eventually there is a breaking point.

Right now you are in a state of balance. When you do daily activities you stay in balance. Even in exercise most of it is done in balance, only a small proportion of training takes you out of balance, and then not for very long. It is difficult to stay outside the comfort zone for very long.

You both gipsy and rekrunner open an interesting aspect of training debate.

The issue of debate here it´s that unhappily you quote untruthful methodology.

First of all Pfitzinger. Is he the same that in the mid 70s did the marathon with 18 years old , what was the unofficial junior American record ?

I´ve read a few things that he wrote on the internet, and namely about periodisation. It´s clear that the man is committed with Lydiard. He tries to run out from Lydiard paradigm, do one step ahead (few steps ahead I really think so), however he does the same fault that many. What is ? It´s that – once again – his background is the Lydiard training one. Let me say this: as long as you aren´t a independent coach, a free will, you will never be able to judge impartial. What I say needs further clarification. If you read his write about periodisation, he tries to be independent up to a certain point, but he says that main responsibility of the season periodisation it´s Lydiard authorship (please, I haven´t the text in front of me, but I think I don´t betray Pfitzinger main idea, then please don´t say it´s not SIC – because if you want deny what I say and I need to prove that i´m right we will run away from tea in debate it´s periodisation.

In fact the comprehension what Pfitzinger says on peridisation seems that thers´s one distance training periodisation before Lydiard and one training peridisation after Lydiard and that most of the rich training periodisation after Lydiard ior are influenced by Lydiard or are in the negation of the Lydiard one. This is a distort description and distort judgment about the Universal history of distance training periodisation approach, and very US-british-english language self centered. Of course that Pz. Could be free from the mainstream of the US-distance run culture and UIS-run philosophy.

People like Pfitzinge, Hodgie-san,, HRE, and more, I guess they are very serious and not opportunists about the training method and their training ideas, but they aren´t free minds, can´t judge in equal impartiality about training, because their background and addiction to a certain method or “blindly” accept or without merge feely into other alternative methods. Only on the day they will be free from be Lydiard on the background and Lydiard and the parameter of every training choice, decision, and alternative is where they will be free to judge and we might be a side-by-side impartial debate.

This is the problem we got here about periodisation and over/super-compensation.

About the CopaCabanaRunners article – I just smile. Do you think this is one trustful source of start one debate that Pfitzinger article ?

http://www.copacabanarunners.net/i-supercompensation.html

The article on the Brazilian site, it´s say so many things that are innadequate training statements that I just smile how someone like you imagine that they can be a good tool of material to work to debate the distance training approach.

Do you really think that we can do an attempt appreciate and debate any training compensation based on Minimum Time between Hard workouts and the next workout and race like that one ? Oh Lord…!

Tempo run of 4 miles @ 10 mile race pace needs 3-5 Days before tune-up race or next hard workout and 6-8 Days before goal race ?

VO2 max Intervals 6 x 800 @ 3 km race pace needs 4-6 Days before tune-up race or next hard workout or 8-11 Days before goal race ?

Do you really think that every overcompensation or plenty recovery and regeneration from kind of workouts requires that long period ? What kind of runner does he talk about, my grandmother with 80 years old and lack of run activity ?

Independently of what´s your run talent – you don´t need to be a toop class runner – jst someone that runs daily - If you are doing regular distance training and you aren´t out of shape, and you run one tempo run workout like 4 miles @ 10 mile race pace and if you don´t recover in 24 hours (1 day in between the next workout ) 36 hours (2 da days eventually) before the next hard tempo workout, something quite wrong is happening with you, or you are sick, or the workout it´s not adjust for you.

The principle is this one. Every rich workout, be one time-trial, intervals, tempo run, a real run, and you didn´t recover in 2 days after that workout the way on the third day after you can continue to run one next workout something is quite wrong. Exceptionally one very hard workout or one very hard long run needs 3-4 days of easy runs in between the next workout eventually, but no more length.

It is proved by science methodology and training experience that one hard usual workout from 3k to marathon pace requires – from the VO2max. (2-3k approx.) to the slower (5k-10k-HM to marathon pace) normally requires 2 days of active runs in between the next workout of that same kind.

If don´t then the days between 2 runs, one the heat to to next one heat, or one heat to the final in the Olympics or world champs or continental champs would need more than 2-3 in the case of 800m-1500m, 3-4 to 3000m steeple to 5000m. In the case of the 10000m I don´t remember heats since long ago, but for example, the world cross country – very demanding on the muscular system – when were 2 runs: the short one and the long one, were been runners like Paula Radcliff, or Kenenisa Bekele, and others that did recover from the short one to the long one in less than 24 hours. Since that the track runs aren´t as demanding as the cross country from the muscular system and since that the muscular system needs long recovery length than the cardio-vascular system, then on one track run or one track workout or every flat surface, 2 days between 2 hard workouts it´s enough in most of the cases. As you know one rel run, like in the Olympics, the cardio-vascular and the neuro-muscular system is more stressed than in one hard workout. Therefore if in most of the cases it´s possible to run two 5 k target goal runs of the season in 2-3 days distance why 2 hard workouts on that pace needs more time to recovery. Well… one thing might be happen. Or the runner is total unfit, or the runner/coach did design one workout that doesn´t fit on the run talent, or HE RUNS FASTER AND HARDER (or longer=higher volume than adviced) in the days between 2 workouts. This is the norm, but all right ther are a few exceptions, but the rule remains the same.

Pfitzinger can´t be my guide, shalln´t be yor guide of debate, while we deal with periodisation and overcompensation. It´s an untruthful source to built one thesis about that matter. Since I deny his conclusion that he got the need of so long days in between workouts recovery-regeneration. I might read, but about that subject my base of training science methodology that from thesis to the Hypothesis (or experimentation) to finally the get to the demonstration and to built one training principle eventually it´s not right what mr. Pfitzinger writes.

[Quote]First of all Pfitzinger. Is he the same that in the mid 70s did the marathon with 18 years old , what was the unofficial junior American record ?[Quote]

No Antonio, you may be thinking of this fella:

http://www.ceochallenges.com/?q=profiles/paul-gompers

I reccomend you read Pete's book since you are a "free thinker":

http://pfitzinger.com/

Always slipping in the sly, unsubtantiated negative comments at Lydiard aren't you. So we have the usual insults, but this time you have really outdone yourself. You've insulted just about everyone in this thread.

Intersting to hear you are unhappy about this but no need, the only person making a mistake here is you. Let me show. Hint - go and read the right hand column in Pfitzy's table. You missed something valuable that would have prevented you being foolish once again.

Ok so there is no point to go on because you are already against the man because he likes Lydiard. Funny. I used to work in the same office building attached to a track as Pfitzy. We worked for different organisations but one day we interacted on the track over one of his athletes that had a biomechanical problem causing a chronic injury. I like him, a genuine guy.

lol i'm glad i'm now laughing at your lunacy. At one point i was so frustrated at your deceptive approach i had to pace around the room to burn off a little energy.

I agree totally with your statement. Now go and look in the mirror and say it again. You parrot Renato, you plagiarise frequently to appear competent on letsrun, you can never answer a question about your own methodology. Nobody knows what you actually know. As far as we can see all you do is use others peoples knowledge as your own. So it is beautifully ironic you make this statement. One of your classics!

yes you are going to have to prove what you are saying by referencing Pfitzinger. Without proof we can only take this as one persons individual opinion and we know what your opinion is worth at the moment. This is another 'garbage bin' comment.

If this is what Pfitzy said then fantastic, he nails it. Antonio method is actually one that exists in negation of Lydiard. It is so clear now. Thankyou for pointing that out.

sorry you are so blind that you cannot even explain your own opinions and your own methodology. Hypocritical enough yet?

I can just imagine the smug look on your face too.

An experienced and unbiased coach looks at everything without this emotional attachment you seem to have to Lydiard. I actually think out of everyone in this entire thread that you are the most obsessed person with Lydiard. Yet you don't even understand Lydiard. So i must assume you are living in the grandest self-delusion. I hope it is enjoyable for you.

You really push it don't you. If you said this stuff to my face the you would probably end up physically damaged, so i wonder how rekrunner feels when you talk about him like this, however, i like the article, both for its accuracies and its inaccuracies. A experienced coach would be learning from both, not spending his time ridiculing. But this is just yet another example of why you aren't a real track and field coach. I'm sure you will provide many more if you keep talking.

Are you a christian? I don't even know what you are saying in this sentence. You can't mean what i think you are saying can you? This is the essence of training,optimise the stimulus response mechanism from day to day. How did you miss this?

Just to stop you here. If you look at the table provided by Pfitzinger a little more closely you will see the right hand column. Perhaps you should take a look at that before insulting Pfitzinger anymore.

You seem to have made an error and are saying that 72 hours is required for the normal recovery cycle. Day 1 Train - day 2 - day 3 - day 4 train. I think you are losing a day there. You must lose so many days in your program if you are working off a 72 hour recovery cycle.

Be careful about overcompensating Antonio, you don't to do that, it's not helpful. Just allow for compensation and all will work out.

IN CONCLUSION

So the problem we have is that almost all of this post is either based on a mistake or is spent ridiculing other, far more accomplished people than yourself. The fact is you are untruthful because you can't even read a 3x3 column diagram properly.

Thanks Hodgie

I beg you to miss and forget something of my posts style, it´s from my personality, sometimes my bad mood temper, but i always respect people like you are one, because i guess you are not an oportunist, you are a serious friendly person with serious intentions. You just got passiom for this running sport.

I also got no reason to disrespect Pfitzinger someone that i don´t know quite well, but i did read something on the internet. Some of his ideas - i agree absolutely - however with some others i don´t. It´s not a bad thing. I guess that you did understood that i don´t agree with his recovery time-table, despite i understand that what he did write is direct for the average amateur runner eventually.

I don´t think that is this guy.

http://www.ceochallenges.com/?q=profiles/paul-gompers

It´s not the one i did remember.

I mean about someone in mid 70s, not 80s and not with Paul GOmpers name. "Keith Pfeiffer" might be something simílar.

Thanks

gypsy wrote:

yes you are going to have to prove what you are saying by referencing Pfitzinger. Without proof we can only take this as one persons individual opinion and we know what your opinion is worth at the moment. This is another 'garbage bin' comment.

Do you think that LRC is one court or what ? Since when anything that anyone says needs to be proved ? Only in your sick mind. We aren´t in the court. We don´t need to prove nothing on the board, we just need to do each own opinion.

I told you once i gonna do one second time. I´m responsible for all my comments and writing. I´m no afraid of you or anyone else. I´m ready to be charged, to be persecuted, condemned, to go to the prison, put in jail, to be crucified, condemn all kind of condemns. Therefore i really don´t care about your comments or your threaten.

My comments do upset you really indeed, or you willn´t reply with this kind of posts.

Try to understand once for all, it´s a gift that you do to yourself. The gentle comments that you send me about me, i move away, I really don´t care. Can´t hurt me, because they aren´t appropriate to comment my methodology contain.

I´m here to say what I think it´s my truth, rather it pleases you it or don´t, rather you agree or you don´t.

ps - about methodology, since you don´t say nothing relevant, and you don´t say notthing about your philosophy expertise, i avoid to comment, no need to comment.

gypsy wrote:

Can we discuss Lydiardism through the eyes of coaches and athletes who follow his methodology?

I have experimented at length and researched thoroughly and would like to bounce my thinking around with other like minded people.

gypsy

Continuing to stick with the original them, as per the OP. Here is an example of a Lydiard method imitated...perhaps there is a more appropriate way to say it. Lydiard principle advocate? Who knows.

I think I mentioned this already. James Li who is currently the coach at the University of Arizona was speaking at the National Endurance Conference in Vancouver. I was there. He said that he coaches by the Lydiard method.

So he coaches Bernard Lagat and Lawli Lelang amongst others.

As an imitation he uses the phasing and all aspects, except the efforts are stronger for most runs. Because of this, the mileage quantity is a little less.

Some of James Li's main points were:

- Do not keep track of mileage. Do not know exactly what Lagat runs per week. Maybe up to 80 miles per week, that is scheduled into his weekly training.

On this above point Li intimated that he does not have complete awareness of any extra miles Lagat does on his own because on occassion Lagat will tell him that some friends invited him out for a run, so he went.

Personally, I think he knows more than he is letting on, but was sort of making the point that exact mileage isn't the most important aspect.

- AT training is very important. Li said that he really likes to push the line of the anaerobic threshold a lot. More than most other coaches. So I don't have the efforts in front of me, but when he showed the paces, everyone in the room agreed that Lagat trained at a very strong pace and his recoveries were not as slow as expected.

It was interesting listening to him speak.

After listening to about 10 people speak, all of them coaches they all had a few things in common, including Alberto Salazar:

- When working with younger athletes work to looking at the long-term goal all the time. Kind of like Stephen Covey's book 7 Habits of Highly Effective people, principle number 1 I think was, start with the end in mind.

- Aerobic development first. This was illustrated well by Alberto Salazar and his progression with Galen Rupp from when he was a 14-year-old soccer player who toiled with running to now.

- All started with Aerobic foundation first and moved through the phases very similar to Vigil, Bowerman, Lydiard et al. In fact all except one, named those three coaches in each of their presentations.

Margo Jennings invented her own method from study others. She was never a runner and only took up coaching kids in Oregon when she started jogging recreationally as she is a school teacher.

Her method looks very home made in style, but she has cycles that include the usual aerobic development, anaerobic developement and race specific training as well...but her thing was refreshing because she was all about the emotional, general mental and motivating training usuing positive affirmation, visualization etc. I quite enjoyed her talk and look forward to interviewing her.

She coaches Holmes, Mutola and others.

Gypsy,

You're not acting rationally or objectively ....

The only obsessed individual here is you (obsessed in condemning Antonio for each word/sentence he speaks)

Antonio earlier provided .... following long requests from you .... a brief account of his methodology in preparing his marathon runners. You could have acknowledged this ... instead you have ignored.

Antonio (over the years) has provided much illumination upon the "modern methodology" .... his "Summer of Antonio" is very detailed, with clear explanation (as far as his English abilities allow) of how he would prepare an athlete progressively towards the specific period of his/her training & competition.

Antonio is clearly a competent coach, with a history of helping athletes in his homeland, & a readiness to try and explain (despite his limited English) his interpretation & application of modern training methodology.

You, on the other hand, are ???????

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I mean about someone in mid 70s, not 80s and not with Paul GOmpers name. "Keith Pfeiffer" might be something simílar.

Thanks

Antonio, I think you're thinking of Kirk Pfeffer. Here's an article that mentions Pfeffer, briefly:

gypsy,

I don't mind if you call me Rek -- they weren't bad memories. And I guess you aren't mistaking me for my brother.

I was looking for principles as topic of discussions -- I wasn't making any connection or statement about modern training with those links. The "ctrunningcamp" link looks like a Connecticut summer camp for high school cross-country, so probably isn't a primary reference for elite modern training. I just liked what he said about important principles to think about when designing individual schedules.

Perhaps I'm the one mixing up specific training with your concept of specificity. For me specificity means that swimming helps swimming, biking helps biking, and running helps running. Cycling can help running, but not as much as running helps running. Going one step further, short fast races need short fast training more than they need long slow training. I agree, in principle, with all the other stuff you said, about the athlete, his event, his history, his current state, etc. ad infinitum. It's just I didn't put that under this specificity principle, as I haven't ever seen the word used in that context.

Don't mind the Enlgish, ugh.

"Does not know..." rather than "Do not..."

Li does not know the exact mileage and does not keep track of the quantity of mileage for Lagat.

I think I listened to about 6 people, some of them twice. Regardless, there were at least three recurring themes:

1.) Long-term thinking/planning/vision.

2.) Aerobic development first.

3.) Phasing, rather than mixing. But this is a bit of a misnomer as even Lydiard had alactic strides, fartlek runs and hilly routes in a weekly plan during the aerobic phase.

Greg McMillan, who is very influenced by Lydiard prefers to use the Gabriel Rosa method for marathon training. He wrote a Running Times Magazine article illustrating this - it is available online. Anyway, the Rosa method is very similar to Lydiard, but there is one big difference. For the runner to run a ton of miles, according to Rosa, they should run efficiently and smoothly and all that, so there is a quality phase added in early....Google it! I think it makes good sense.

....just sticking with the OP's theme.

craig mcmahon wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I mean about someone in mid 70s, not 80s and not with Paul GOmpers name. "Keith Pfeiffer" might be something simílar.

Thanks

Antonio, I think you're thinking of Kirk Pfeffer. Here's an article that mentions Pfeffer, briefly:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1091884/index.htm

Thanks. It´s him already, the man i was thinking of.