Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

I am a victim of my own lazy proofreading. From above, paragraph 2, sentence 2 should actually read: "I do not think anyone would argue that a Coe-Martin regimen would NOT work quite well with these athletes, especially those at the lower end."

My apologies for my blunder. Much happiness to you all.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the coe methodology. He does not advocate 'low mileage.' In winning running, he talks about hour plus long runs as well as threshold paced runs. the difference lies in the yearly progression. coe believes that high mileage at an early age can be damaging to the musclular skeletal system. he instead focuses on raw speed (not through hard anaerobic work, but through fast reps with long recoveries) and aerobic threshold, with a gradual addition of more mileage over several years. notice how sebastian began his career training like a 400 man. he didn't even move up past 800 until his 400 time was close to its peak. after his speed was honed over several years of plyos, lifting, hill sprints, overspeed training, and sprint work, he began to gradually add more distance to his program. thus the quotes about not running more than 8 miles was probably given early in his career, while his claims of 80 plus (or even more depending on how you calculate it) mile weeks occurred later. This early focus on sprint training is the source of the much touted, near-perfect form, and probably allowed his fragile body to handle the pounding of later years as more mileage was gradually introduced.

Interestingly enough, in both his books, Dr. Daniels suggests a similar progression. He reccomends first honing speed through reps and T paced work, and gradually increasing mileage and adding in Vo2 stuff later. In fact, he claims ideally runners wouldn't reach truly HIGH mileage until after college, but that the high school and college scholarship program makes that unfeasable.

So the consensus seems to be, yes, mileage makes the runner. The only argument is when to implement it. Coe says work on raw speed and efficiency first, add mileage later. Daniels seems to agree (maybe we can get him in on the discussion) Lydiard advocates high mileage first, saying that efficiency will follow, and that a high aerobic base must be developed as soon as possible.

"If you think for one instant that there is any special formula by which a "quality over quantity" methodology will bring you to fruition as a runner, that "kid" is you. You have no idea what this sport is about, and I suggest you learn what is about by doing it rather than by researching Ex. Phys. studies, observing runners on treadmills or getting a complete workout schedule from anyone who does either for a living. Those resources can help you with some specifics, but you will never find the total solution there. The answer lies in the trials of miles out on the roads."

This is interesting. Does it say that "Coe Horwill coaches were scientists, not out in the real world?" What does it say about these two methodolgies? How can anyone say that "quality over quantity" is the Coe-Martin way? Again, an oversimplification.

"Enter the 1980s. While the elite runners (who had grown up during the 1970s running boom and understood how to train) were still running sub-28:00 for 10,000m (Nenow, Bickford, Eyestone, Sandoval, etc.) and scads of 2:10-2:15 marathons (and a few 2:08-2:09 times on p-t-p courses), the high school crowd (beginning circa 1979) had moved toward a "faster must be better" mantra. Coe obviously did not start this, but his assertions that "modern middle distance running is about speed" (another direct quote), as well as the other quotes mentioned above, fed a virtual cult of misuderstanding followers who praised the Emporer's new clothes of high intensity. The biggest problem was the non-runners in the white lab coats determining (in true "forget what we told you several years ago; this time we've really got it right" fashion) that max VO2 could be improved to its ceiling by running 35-40 miles per week. The next generation of runners, already overestimating the importance of max VO2 in predicting performance, was happy to hear that they could be back at the arcade playing Asteroids and Pac-Man after a 30-minute track workout. Virtually every piece of literature of the mid-1980s announced that the trend in training was toward lower mileage and higher intensity. Performances on the depth charts plummeted, first among the high school ranks and then among U.S. elites. Runners who had burned out from high intensity and mediocre performances in youth had little reason to stay in the sport, and the elite ranks thinned."

I'm sorry, but you are still blaming this decline on what you perceive (wrongly) to be the "mass wave of the 80s". Could it be, as Windsurfer so eloquently put it, that lifestyles and the grassroots base became much more responsible, rather than thousands of elite runners suddenly denying themselves the hard work that was required to get to the top? I'd argue that Coe training wasn't even widely available until the decline had already began. The highschoolers didn't say "Lydiard is old school, Go Coe!" en masse.

Another thing from Horwill's stuuf on serpentine.org.uk on winter training:

Sebastian Coe devoted his winter to weight-training three times a week, hill running and a session at his estimated 5km pace (13:20). He was able to run 7 X 800m well under 2:08s with 45 secs rest...So, each week you have a long run, hill run and a 5k or 3k pace session. Your mileage is increasing gradually. You are building up your VO2 max very efficiently. If you plan to run indoors you must keep in touch with speed, that’s pure speed and race speed. Devote one of your daily average sessions to pure speed one week (Full out sprint) and race speed the next week (800 or 1500m pace). If you are a sprinter devote three sessions a week to it, but do not neglect general conditioning (mileage). Running heats, semi-finals and final, requires stamina.

Here's an excerpt from Steve Scott's 1981-82 log, Steve being very much a Lydiard advocate:

19 October, Monday: No AM run. PM ran with

ASU guys. 8x1000-500m. 3min

5min. Avg. 2:47 last 2:42. 1:22 fast 1:10. Was hot,

good workout. Ran home.

14mi.

Tuesday: 15mi run out the canal. Good pace. Got

blisters. Stopped for H2O 3

times. 15mi

Wednesday: Fly to LA for PR stuff. Easy 5mi park

loop, second stepped up a gear.

10mi.

Thursday: No AM run. 20x Roast hill. Ran out &

back, good hard pace. 11mi

Friday: Easy 5mi AM run. PM ran to ASU easy 10miler.

15mi

Saturday: Easy 5mi AM canal run. Very sore from

stride-outs. PM ran 10mi at

good pace. 15mi

Sunday: AM 5mi canal loop. PM 10mi up South Mtn.

Good, back hard. 15mi

Week: 95mi

26 October, Monday: No AM run. Ran up to

canal. 10x1000m, 500m jog rest.

Avg. 2:47, last in 2:39. Equals 27:50 10km. Ran

back. 15mi

Tuesday: Ran 10mi in the morning. Nice and slow.

Sore from yesterday. PM ran

5mi canal loop at good pace. Lifted at home.

15mi.

Wednesday: 5mi in the morning. PM Ran 10mi , pretty

quick. Quads still hurt.

15mi

Thursday: AM 5mi run. PM 30x Roost hill hard. Was a

good workout. Ran home.

15mi.

Friday: 5mi easy. 5mi

Saturday: 10mi easy southern loop. 10mi

Sunday: AM 5mi easy. PM Good 10mi up South Mtn.

15mi

Week: 90mi

Look similar don't they? Not to be a devil's advocate but this is supposed to be a disscussion board, right?

This is a very worthy topic for discussion. I think the main differences involve the concepts of WHEN to do different kinds of running, and why should we / should we not multipace year round?

It is a MYTH that Coe-Martin-Horwill et al promote lo volume and quick fixit. That's one big reason why I started this thread. (Asceticists - the new Whitehouse cd, if you dare!) I am fed up with being told that the Coe-Martin book, Training Distance Runners, and their approach to training, is largely responsible for the decline in North American running. Careful analysis is required, and that analysis will lead to the conclusion that this kind of program, like Lydiards, is absolutely wonderful for those who choose to embrace the ideas within.

So, if we are going to answer the original question, we need to GET REAL with respect to both programs. So far, I have seen some very thoughtful posts, and also, some that choose to propogate myths and take things out of context.

Let's start with the volume myth. What weekly volumes did Coe and other Coe-Martin disciples run during winter? (Hint: 30-60MPW is the wrong answer.) Someone please dig up the recommended sessions per week, in Training Distance Runners, during this period, and let's look at the makeup of those sessions. Please.

Is they're really such a thing as Lydiardism when Lydiard himself never got his stories straight. He says that he had all his runners run 100 mile a weeks consistently but in an interview with Marathon and Beyond Peter Snell contradicts that and says that he often ran much less than that. Lydiard has also given completely contradictory statements on the pace of his long run. In addition, Lydiard mocks American runners who run their intervals too hard with too much rest while Snell says that a lot of rest is exactly what you need to have in between intervals.

Actually, Lydiard said that his runners ran 100 mile a weeks consistently during the base phase, not year round. Still, that account is contradicted by Peter Snell.

"Lydiard mocks American runners who run their intervals too hard with too much rest"

Lydiard has NEVER said that. Too hard, yes; but with too much rest, NO. Where did you read or hear him say that?

Good morning Nobby! :) I thought the other thread was getting a bit tired, so, I started this one. Hope you don't mind! :) A new twist on a great discussion.

You ask a question; I answer: May/June 2004 page 22 issue of Marathon and Beyond Lydiard says: "The problem with interval training is that you are literally training your body to run a certain distance fast and then have a rest, run one fast then have a rest. Of course, the race will not be run this way unless you're running against Vladimir Kuts in 1956 or something."page 24: A friend of mine went to Morocco to observe what they are doing He came back and told me "Arthur, they are doing your training, except they take longer rest periods for their anaerobic training for more complete recovery."

Nobby wrote:

"Lydiard mocks American runners who run their intervals too hard with too much rest"

Lydiard has NEVER said that. Too hard, yes; but with too much rest, NO. Where did you read or hear him say that?

10 years ago we had this discussion on tnfmedia. Skuj is right, Peter Coe knows how to train distance runners. That is to say: Seb Coe covered all the bases and trained harder than arguably anyone else ever has. This made him great. Unfortunately, given Seb’s strengths and weaknesses, in order to become great at his chosen events, he had to train in a way that requires great dedication and for which the only reward is faster times. It could be said that the ability to keep doing this training, only to get faster, was Seb’s greatest strength. Without Seb’s diligence, it is nearly impossible for anyone to follow Seb’s example closely enough for a long enough time to reproduce his achievements or even to reach one’s own personal limitations.

On the other hand, Lydiard, which at its highest level also requires all the same bases to be covered and is just as hard to do, starts with a base building phase that is nothing short of addicting. Once you have this base, you tack on a few of the other essentials and you run well almost as an afterthought. Think about why you want to keep running for the rest of your life. Is it to do fast intervals or even to win 80+ age groups? As I understand it, Seb still runs, what type of training does he do now? The base type of training he is addicted to, not the training that he knows, better that anyone else ever could, would get him into the best shape for racing. Much of the success of the 70’s was fueled by this addiction.

Over the last 10 years, I remember Malmo reminding us that we train to race. My guess is Seb never had to be reminded that he was training to race. Base phase running becomes a habit, an addiction, and it is easy for getting miles in to become the goal in itself. I don’t think either method is better than the other if they are done with equal diligence. However, once you embrace a lifestyle that encompasses high mileage, for many, it is much harder to quit than multipace training and this lifestyle inexorably pulls you to your potential.

Skuj wrote:

Let's start with the volume myth. What weekly volumes did Coe and other Coe-Martin disciples run during winter? (Hint: 30-60MPW is the wrong answer.)

It would appear The Professor answered this question before you even asked it -- 70-75 MPW (from the top of the page).

Unite 5:

I conducted that interview. I know exactly what I asked; I know exactly what Arthur answered and what he meant.

Nowhere in your reference did Lydiard "mocked" American doing intervals too hard although he probably would have agreed. In regards to rest period; what Alistair McMarran who went to Morroco to study their training refered to is actually "taking longer recovery" is a good thing which, in Lydiard's opinion, Americans don't do. If I remember correctly, what Peter Snell in that particular interview you're referring to was saying is exactly that; he was in fact criticising Americans cutting down recovery which in his opinion is not a good thing.

Nobby, first of all that was a terrific interview. You really did the sport a service by letting him expound on his training philosophy and your knowledge of the sport is obvious. But as far as my earlier comment that Lydiard was mocking US runners, here's what I was thinking of:

"I always tell people if there was an event like 20x400 meters at the Olympics, Americans would sweep the medals." page 21...

Unit 5:

Thanks, and sorry I misspelled your "name"!

Yes, that's old Kiwi's sense of humor. It's not so much that he "mocks" Americans (though I'd admit it does sound that way at times) but you also have to understand why he says it that way--he loved the US. He literally chose the US to die. Of course, I'm the infamous guy who "killed Arthur by bringing the old man across the ocean," and believe me, it wasn't easy to get over, but the more I find out from people in NZ who are very close to him, the more I'm convinced that this is the way he wanted to be. Once he actually DID say that he'd rather die in the US where people still remember him and where he had so many close friends (and I can name a few). His friend replied by saying, "But that's a terrible loss to New Zealand." Lydiard said, "That's their problem." Lydiard really saw this as his last service to the sport. Lydiard always said that for every John Walker, US should have a dozen. Mockery? May sound that way; but that shows nothing but his frustration for wasted potential. As arrogant as it may sound, he really wanted to help US to get their act together and start coaching young talent right. Let's face it; Dick Brown showed me his statistics before; of how many Olympic and world championship medals (800m and up) the US wins per capita (GNP in $); the US is waaaaaaaaaay down at the bottom. Why? Because we don't have talent? Absolutely not. Because "Americans are lazy"? Remember, Lydiard was the one who always said that Americans train very hard (not in a mockery tone when some of their own people mock about how lazy they are); but they are doing it wrong. It doesn't have to be that way. And that's the message Lydiard wanted to convey.

Actually, I think the staistics Dick Brown showed me was how many runners finished top 6 in the final, not just the medal count.

Sorry if i'm repeating but ...

The pudding:

Coe - One success as a coach

Lydiard - Many, many.

Certainly as a coach and major influence Lydiard rates higher. In terms of actual training specifics - it probably depends on the individual athlete but my theory is that 'Coe might work but Lydiard will work'. Ive seen too many athletes destroyed by overindulgence in speed sessions. Progressive Lydiardism over a number of years will produce results.

wannabekila wrote:

Sorry if i'm repeating but ...

The pudding:

Coe - One success as a coach

Lydiard - Many, many.

You know nothing! Even if Coe did coach only one runner, he'd still have the most world records. Take your pudding and go home. Don't come back until you know your facts.