Lydiard Philosophy

You know, there was such a great running tradition in Britain that I would be very hesitant to criticize what they did. But it did strike me as that "throw the eggs against the wall and see what ones don't break" sort of thing. It seems like guys like Adcocks and Peters set the tone and it was quite a tone.

wellnow, you are a two-faced poster. You wrote in this thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2758075&page=2like this:

You are pathetic wellnow.

weIInow wrote:

I measured my words very carefully. I used the term endurance capacity, not aerobic capacity. They are not the same thing. We have to consider the skills of running as being distinct from cardiovascular development.

weIInow wrote:

I measured my words very carefully. I used the term endurance capacity, not aerobic capacity. They are not the same thing. We have to consider the skills of running as being distinct from cardiovascular development.

What are you smoking wellnow?

NobbyH wrote:

weIInow wrote:

Right now I am enjoying a beautiful Autumn here in England, and every time the light changes I wish I had a camera.

Wellnow:

Also, here are some photos of mine that I just recently posted on flickr website. You might enjoy them. ;o)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43701541@N04/?saved=1

****************************************************

Thanks Nobby, loved those pictures. The changing colors of the leaves gives so much more dimension to a view, an artists and photographers dream when the light is right.

Grow up Peter, I don't smoke marijuana like you.

I´m not this "Peter". But you are a pretender.

Learn about neuromuscular coordination, and then report back in six months or so.

Learn about endurance training with natural talent (=Tirunesh Dibaba etc.) and then report back.

Motorbreath wrote:

Wellnow / HRE: As a younger British club runner, I can report that some of us have the right idea and I've had encouraging chats with clubmates recently who have experimented with Lydiard-style base training and seen transformations in their racing performances. Of course, there are still those who believe it is possible to take short-cuts by hammering all their running and calling it 'quality over quantity'. These same people even turn hill training into races and wonder why they never progress.

To be honest Motorbreath, it's not the Lydiard base training that appeals to me, it's the philosophy that you shouldn't worry about perceived levels of talent, you are only as good as your training. With the right attitude, and a few pointers from a good coach you can just keep improving and improving, there is no known limit to how fast athletes will run regardless of what some people think about drugs etc.

Not exactly -- he used the term "endurance capacity" to in order to break away from the (allegedly) problematic use of the term "aerobic". The tendency to use different terms like "aerobic development", "aerobic threshold", and "aerobic capacity" interchangeably, just confuses things, when people aren't clear which terms mean what they mean to say.I would have liked a definition or an explanation of "endurance capacity", but took it to mean increasing the ability to endure.

haahaaa wrote:

wellnow, you are a two-faced poster.

You are pathetic wellnow.

Voice of Ray-san, you´ve battled with wellnow several times, it seems now that wellnow has succeeded to brainwash you. My condolences.

Three great sources on Lydiard:

1. November Running Times article by Lorraine Moller. Wonderful stuff.

2. Healthy Intelligent Training, by Keith Livingstone. Best updated Lydiard guide (offical training guide of L. Foundation)

3. Lydiard's own Running to the Top. Reads wonderfully - like a conversation with a wise running elder.

Not sure how I should take "condolences" from "haahaaa".You should think of me as a soldier of "reason", rather than an arch-nemesis of "wellnow" at all costs. I don't believe everything he says is wrong.My battles with "wellnow" mainly concerned whether an exclusive aerobic dogma exist, when I can find mainstream models including non-aerobic things like efficiency and economy as sources of long term improvements.(OK, there was that VDOT battle too... but I digress.)Generally, I don't have any problems with his stated views on oxygen and lactate (besides a few specific details) -- I just think they can still fit in the old model with only some minor changes, if at all.But I've gone down that road as far as I care to.There are many valid criticisms we can make, but calling him "two-faced" because of seemingly multiple conflicting views of "aerobics", is not valid, especially considering his "express" intention to avoid the "aerobic" confusion, by choosing a more specific term "endurance capacity" (leaving unaddressed the source of improvements of endurance).As far as what concerns me, Lydiard's "training philosophy" is a safe subject for "wellnow" to discuss.

haahaaa wrote:

Voice of Ray-san, you´ve battled with wellnow several times, it seems now that wellnow has succeeded to brainwash you. My condolences.

To extend that philosopy to a sub 25 minute 10000m, what does a runner have to do?

Simple, 190 strides per minute at just over 2.1 meters per stride.

Bekele's 26.17 was 190 strides per minute at 2.0 meters per stride.

This raises one important question in my mind. Do most runners compromize their stride length as they become more competitive?

weIInow wrote:

To extend that philosopy to a sub 25 minute 10000m, what does a runner have to do?

Simple, 190 strides per minute at just over 2.1 meters per stride.

Bekele's 26.17 was 190 strides per minute at 2.0 meters per stride.

This raises one important question in my mind. Do most runners compromize their stride length as they become more competitive?

Wellnow:

Now this IS a very interesting point. Right now, my take on my own running is that I'd need to increase my sride length. So I've been doing some step running; probably move on to do more extensive hill training... My stride frequency is not quite enough either and am trying to get it up to 180 (now probably a shy of 170). It does become a matter of math, doesn't it?

But here's thing too though. I can do 180 stride frequency doing strides. I can reach out and probably even do 190cm as well--heck, even 70+ years old Cerutty used to "demonstrate" 7-foot stride. But the question is; how can I continue to do that without getting out of gas?

It's simple (maybe too simple) to express things in terms of stride rate x stride length, but doesn't that just exchange one hard problem with an equally hard problem:Given I could run 190 cadence with a 2 meter stride-rate, for 26 minutes, what do I have to do to run a 190 cadence with a 2.1 meter stride-rate, for 25 minutes? I'm strong enough to increase my stride, but maybe then, because of the extra energy cost, I can only sustain the longer stride length for 20 minutes, because I overheat, or fatigue.Answering the resulting question requires identifying, what aspect do I possess which could be improved even further. (At this level, we no longer speak of weaknesses.)I would accept at this point it's not my capillaries, nor my mitochondria. Is it my form? My muscle composition? My mind? My diet? My weight? My race strategy? My hydration strategy? My cooling strategy? My fueling strategy? My training periodicity? My coach?Then you must answer, how do I improve it? Simply running downhill with the wind at my back won't fix everything, or will it?All this presumes it's even possible, because maybe I'm genetically gifted with legs which are less than optimal length, or Popeye calves which are a little too muscular for the required power to weight ratio.This, unfortunately, is the challenge of everyone who has plateaued, or stagnated, and there is no single simple answer (is there?).

weIInow wrote:

To extend that philosopy to a sub 25 minute 10000m, what does a runner have to do?

Simple, 190 strides per minute at just over 2.1 meters per stride.

Bekele's 26.17 was 190 strides per minute at 2.0 meters per stride.

This raises one important question in my mind. Do most runners compromize their stride length as they become more competitive?

Good questions Nobby.

When we race, we increase stride rate compared to steady running. And of course wearing lighter shoes helps too.

The key to a longer stride is a more powerful push off. If you race a 10k at 180 spm and you run 34.00 your stride length would be 1.63 meters. So a good stride length to practice would be about 1.75 - 1.80m. To do this without getting out of gas, something like 5x3 minutes at a 170 spm would make it a lot easier. That would be halfway between 5k and 10k pace. A hard session, but not a painful one. I used 60 seconds recovery recently which was plenty.

When you have recovered, you can practice running with a shorter stride and a faster stride rate. If you cut your stride rate right down, it is still very hard to keep the stride rate high and back lift the heels high, even with a very short stride.

Gradually by combining the two workouts you can develop a longer stride without compromising stride rate.

Eventually someone will run 25 laps in under 25 minutes, and I am absolutely sure that it can be done without drugs, and the runner doesn't have to be some genetic freak.

I think perhaps one of the mistakes we make is to try to do sessions based on running a certain distance in a certain time, and perhaps this limits our development, because we don't develop stride length much, because of a lack of focus on power, and too much focus on measuring our effort to get through the session.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

I would accept at this point it's not my capillaries, nor my mitochondria. Is it my form? My muscle composition? My mind? My diet? My weight? My race strategy? My hydration strategy? My cooling strategy? My fueling strategy? My training periodicity? My coach?

It's everything. Maintaining the same cadence with an increased stride length means your legs must cover a greater distance within the same amount of time. Remember, the moment your foot touches the ground, it is no longer moving, and you must transfer that foot from it's location to a new location on each stride. You've increased the distance it needs to cover, and that means burning more energy to do it.