No reason to downvote what I wrote. I simply repeated facts from the man himself.
Or perhaps the downvote was about pointing out that “intervals” are the recoveries. They are, but as the running community often does is we mess with the meaning of run-specific language.
Even Arthur did, as it was German scientists who explained to him in scientific terms why his method is so effective.
It was difficult for westerners to know exactly what Zatopek's training was like what with the Cold War going on. But he wasn't doing hard intervals all the time. Van Aaken was heavily influenced and impressed by Zatopek, like Lydiard was, and for the same reason; the heavy volume he was doing. But van Aaken claimed Zatopek's reps were not all that hard. He described the sessions as 400 meters of jogging and 200 meters of less than jogging.
Zatopek's idea of "jogging" is closer to what most of us would call marathon pace.
I can't recall anywhere that I've seen times for Zatopek's reps but if he ran them at marathon pace they wouldn't have been all that hard.
Lydiard developed his training philosphy from the successes of prior coaches like Cerutty, and a lot of his own trial and error. He did so in the era before we had the current level of scientific understanding of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Rather than being "discredited", Lydiard's coaching has been refined with the added knowledge of metabolic biochemistry and tools like heart monitors, lactate testing and other scientific advances that allow coaches to know more precisely the impacts of training that Lydiard had to estimate from just a stopwatch and personal observation of his athletes.
Lydiard didn't develop his methods from Cerutty. They were contemporaries but Lydiard's methods were developed from his own running in the early '50's and with his early proteges like Halberg. I doubt he was aware of Cerutty until Elliott's successes in the late '50's.
The accretion of scientific knowledge you refer to has explained much of why his methods worked, but it also shows that practical application and experience are better for doing things than theorising about how they could be done.
You are right in that Lydiard learned from his own experiences and his athletes, but he took it a bit further by talking to other coaches such as Cerutty and the guy from Hungary whose name I cannot usually spell correctly IGOLI (sp). The mistake most coaches make is thinking they have the secrets. Lydiard was not like that!
Here’s a trip down memory lane: I actually used this page to order both my “Lydiard Road Runners” and the Sao Paulo; and I did receive my “Free Lydiard Training Program”.
The Pyramid was a crucial concept for me, with the base phase what many of us attempted only during the summer. That was 3 months of base. Anyone else get a mimeographed print out like this?:
Mon: 10 miles, Tue: 15, Wed: 12, Thr: 18, Fri: 10, Sat: 20, Sun: 15 = 100 miles; plus you were supposed to jog 3 or 4 miles every morning to “stay loose”. You don’t even count the morning miles!
The concept of periodization was an important contribution by Lydiard that is still relevant even though he did not invent it. I cringe when I view a large chunk of folks on Strava who seem to be in a contest of who can sustain the fastest pace per week. And then these folks get injured and are clueless as to why.
My Saturday 20 miler was so much fun for me. I’d stop and chat with farmers, grab some apples, walk a bit, and just enjoy the heck out of being out there. Lydiard encourage this kind of enjoyment, because in a few months, when you were reaching the top of the pyramid, you were running with the taste of blood in your mouth.
Intervals of course are the recoveries, the repetitions were the hard word. So, he referred to this as anaerobic training. Not "speed work" and not "interval training."
He learned from others and self experimentation. Jack Dolan was a great influence.
I see someone mentioned to "improve Snell's speed," later in this thread. No, Snell had the slowest 200m personal best on the start line of the finals in Rome and Tokyo Olympics. But with 200m to go (in the 800), he dropped everyone. So, the question was how, if he was the slowest over 200m?
The answer is that the 800m is not about muscular speed. It is about having the aerobic conditioning to take advantage of whatever speed one may have. Look at Keely Hodgkinson, although not a volume based athlete, her 400m is much slower than Mu and Moraa's yet she beats them on occassion and like Snell has Olympic gold.
Volume was important for Arthur's athletes, but when asked which phase of training is the most important, he said, "everything." Interestingly one of the more overlooked phases of his training is the hill phase. Ironically, the hill phase's purpose is to develop power in the foot, ankle and lower leg and activate the lifting muscles in the upper leg, this, to prepare the athlete for anaerobic training on the track. To develop the power to top up the limited anaerobic capacity.
What do we have today instead of development of the foot, ankle area, lower leg? Super shoes that do all the work.
But to answer your question, I fully support HRE's well-informed answer.....
You aren't quite right about Snell's speed or what you describe as the lack of it. When he first came to Lydiard it was his speed that led Lydiard to direct him towards the 800. The purpose of his training was to give him superior endurance to other 800 runners. Snell was capable of 22-low over the 200 - in training and on the tracks of that era and with pre-modern shoes. There may have been some faster runners at Rome and Tokyo - Kerr could run 21 for the 200 and 46 for the 400, and Bill Crothers was a 46 runner for the 400 - but Snell wasn't slow by any means. However it was his power and his kick that set him apart.
snell would ditch some longer stuff for faster stuff
the hill phase was equivalent to middle distance specific work.
bounding was speed work.
intervals were in there .
the 80s 90s interpretation was to run 75,minutes a day at 440 to 520 mile pace with hills. for 10 weeks build up.
at the end of the day, lydiard is the foundation principles are the basis of most every world class program, including and especially peaking protocol.
Was he wrong about doing stamina work "for as long as possible?" I see so many recommendations for doing interval training. Lydiard was against most of that.
I am sure he said more about it than just that. But Lydiard came out even more against hard interval training but this is often disregarded even by today's coaches who should know that a base is crucial for a distance runner and even a sprinter to reach his top development. But also the coach cannot control the parents and children who want instant success. Instant success will happen faster with hard interval training, and if you make a mistake and the kid gets injured, so what? I have another 50 on my team to toy with. That is the current thinking among many people, coaches, parents, and kids! (Many also think that kids can come back stronger after injuries, and that is true to some extent. But in the meantime you have lost the essential art of the sport!)
