Thanks for your reply.
I just checked the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiZ1F4KN8Mw
It is hard to tell if he eased up or not. Yeah, Snell was probably a bit underdone in '65. Probably had lost some interest too.
Thanks for your reply.
I just checked the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiZ1F4KN8Mw
It is hard to tell if he eased up or not. Yeah, Snell was probably a bit underdone in '65. Probably had lost some interest too.
Wet Coast wrote:
Shockwave,
So far you are batting .0000.
That's sort of sad.
Your contribute to the discuss is what ?
This answers the question (appears around 7 minutes). During his initial build-up he does 5 mile runs at 6 am and evening sessions totaling 100 mpw. But as he gains strength he maintains his 5 mile runs at 6 am but manages 100 mpw in the evening sessions alone. Potentially Snell was running between 100-135 mpw during his base phase.
Some time ago on this same letsrun.com board Mr. Nobby said that the best way it´s to do 1h30min single in one day and on the very next day 45m-45m double.
But i see...it was in another context...
Wet Coast wrote:
Shockwave,
So far you are batting .0000.
That's sort of sad.
Sad would be if you are the referee or the judge in court. With your blind way to judge I will be condemned to life sentence without do nothing at all.
My first question is why this man knows out himself that 30-60min is one of the best ways to get in shape ?. May be he is a runner and did improve his own PB that way.
May be he is a coach and the runners he coaches they are get shape by do so relate to other double options. But he doesn’t. He answers that he forgets he is on Letsrun.com. He is. He is on letsrun.com either. If he is in one independent seminar – not one like that with the agenda of Lydiard propaganda, in one lecture, in one conference, or if he writes one article about methodological training, or if he writes one scientific paper to be read by the science community, people will not give him credit or respect if he doesn’t justify how he founds himself that 30-60min is one of the best ways to get in shape. In the case that it doesn’t matter if it’s 30-60 or 35-55 or 45-45 whatever he shall not said that. He is on letsrun.com either. On letsrun.com everyone may say everything without prove.
HRE wrote:
Let me know when shockwave says something interesting, or even intelligible.
Thanks by your same opinion on me so many times you post it, but what I say it´s something undeniable. The fact that on that day he did the first lap much slower than the second relate to what some they think with good Lydiard aerobic condition it able one good second lap.
That day – I repeat - that day – that by chance it´s the same he did the 800m WR –many times mentioned to prove that Snell did a good anaerobic condition because he did many miles that does good aerobics, on that day he seems to fail to prove his good aerobic condition.
Or may be ther´s another way to look at the situation…that just it´s not true. The runner that wins it´s just he fast one.
(from an old post)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=964958&page=71Here’s another way to look at the situation; now this is based on fiction so the actual numbers may not completely accurately reflect the real life situation. Number are completely “for the argument sake.”
We have runner A and runner B. They both have 55-seconds 400m speed and would like to run 800 in 2 minutes. And both of them start getting lactic acid when you go 10 seconds beyond their best 400m time (this is kind of bogus...); in other words, they will still be “aerobic” while running the speed 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time (you wish...). And both of them can sprint 100m flat out in 12 seconds. Runner A decided to work on his endurance; while runner B decided to hone his speed (now this ain’t gonna happen because even doing interval training all the time WILL improve your aerobic capacity somewhat...). By the race time, runner A developed his aerobic capacity up so now he won’t start getting lactic acid until he runs faster than 62 seconds (7 seconds slower than his best 400m effort). Runner B improved his 400m time down to 53 seconds and, as a result, now his 100m PR is down to 11.5 seconds; but his aerobic capacity remains the same so he will start producing lactic acid at 63 seconds per 400m (53 + 10). Now in the race both of them run the first lap in 60 seconds; 2 seconds faster for runner A’s threshold and 3 seconds faster than runner B’s threshold. It’s only a slight difference in second but we know physiologically that, with the slight increase in speed, lactic acid production shoots up (as Lydiard explained as “it doubles, squares and cubes”). By the time they both come around the last bend, runner B’s legs are full of lactic acid which creates neuromuscular breakdown and it’s very difficult to contract muscles, he struggles to manage only 17 seconds for the last 100m with “wobbly legs” (anybody who runs 800m knows exactly how THAT feels); whereas runner A, while also getting into oxygen debt, the damage is not as much as runner B, also “because he’s marathon-trained, he does not feel as tired,” he can sprint close to flat-out in the last 100m (as Snell displayed number of times), perhaps 13 seconds.
The question is who’s the least anaerobic coming into the last bend. The question is how much aerobic can you stay during the race; how high is your aerobic level (threshold pace) compared to the speed at which you’re running the entire race. This is why, in the international competition with Kenyans and Ethiopians with very high aerobic capacity, they are not as much anaerobic coming into the last lap that they can sprint flat-out while others, even if their basic speed is actually faster than theirs, barely maintain the speed with “wobbly legs” full of lactic acid. Somebody mentioned Bekele’s speed. Yes, he’s very fast even in 400m (sure as hell quite a lot faster than me!) but there are others who can run flat-out 400m against Bekele faster, in fact quite a bit faster. But if they get too far anaerobic by the time they reach the final lap, all the speed in the world is not going to help them out-sprint Bekele. Now THAT is the basic concept of the Lydiard method. And THAT is the reason why you do all those marathon-conditioning to develop your aerobic capacity as high as possible.
Honestly, figuring out what you're talking about is generally way too much work in relation to how interesting or useful what you've written turns out to be. Evidently you're trying to write something that will interest me but after a sentence or two I gave up.
shockwave wrote:
HRE wrote:Let me know when shockwave says something interesting, or even intelligible.
Thanks by your same opinion on me so many times you post it, but what I say it´s something undeniable. The fact that on that day he did the first lap much slower than the second relate to what some they think with good Lydiard aerobic condition it able one good second lap.
That day – I repeat - that day – that by chance it´s the same he did the 800m WR –many times mentioned to prove that Snell did a good anaerobic condition because he did many miles that does good aerobics, on that day he seems to fail to prove his good aerobic condition.
Or may be ther´s another way to look at the situation…that just it´s not true. The runner that wins it´s just he fast one.
(from an old post)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=964958&page=71Here’s another way to look at the situation; now this is based on fiction so the actual numbers may not completely accurately reflect the real life situation. Number are completely “for the argument sake.”
We have runner A and runner B. They both have 55-seconds 400m speed and would like to run 800 in 2 minutes. And both of them start getting lactic acid when you go 10 seconds beyond their best 400m time (this is kind of bogus...); in other words, they will still be “aerobic” while running the speed 10 seconds slower than their best 400m time (you wish...). And both of them can sprint 100m flat out in 12 seconds. Runner A decided to work on his endurance; while runner B decided to hone his speed (now this ain’t gonna happen because even doing interval training all the time WILL improve your aerobic capacity somewhat...). By the race time, runner A developed his aerobic capacity up so now he won’t start getting lactic acid until he runs faster than 62 seconds (7 seconds slower than his best 400m effort). Runner B improved his 400m time down to 53 seconds and, as a result, now his 100m PR is down to 11.5 seconds; but his aerobic capacity remains the same so he will start producing lactic acid at 63 seconds per 400m (53 + 10). Now in the race both of them run the first lap in 60 seconds; 2 seconds faster for runner A’s threshold and 3 seconds faster than runner B’s threshold. It’s only a slight difference in second but we know physiologically that, with the slight increase in speed, lactic acid production shoots up (as Lydiard explained as “it doubles, squares and cubes”). By the time they both come around the last bend, runner B’s legs are full of lactic acid which creates neuromuscular breakdown and it’s very difficult to contract muscles, he struggles to manage only 17 seconds for the last 100m with “wobbly legs” (anybody who runs 800m knows exactly how THAT feels); whereas runner A, while also getting into oxygen debt, the damage is not as much as runner B, also “because he’s marathon-trained, he does not feel as tired,” he can sprint close to flat-out in the last 100m (as Snell displayed number of times), perhaps 13 seconds.
The question is who’s the least anaerobic coming into the last bend. The question is how much aerobic can you stay during the race; how high is your aerobic level (threshold pace) compared to the speed at which you’re running the entire race. This is why, in the international competition with Kenyans and Ethiopians with very high aerobic capacity, they are not as much anaerobic coming into the last lap that they can sprint flat-out while others, even if their basic speed is actually faster than theirs, barely maintain the speed with “wobbly legs” full of lactic acid. Somebody mentioned Bekele’s speed. Yes, he’s very fast even in 400m (sure as hell quite a lot faster than me!) but there are others who can run flat-out 400m against Bekele faster, in fact quite a bit faster. But if they get too far anaerobic by the time they reach the final lap, all the speed in the world is not going to help them out-sprint Bekele. Now THAT is the basic concept of the Lydiard method. And THAT is the reason why you do all those marathon-conditioning to develop your aerobic capacity as high as possible.
This has got to be one of the most incomprehensible posts in the history of LR! Priceless!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Ditto Amused. Could I have that in plain English please.
The Lydiard System was wonderful but rendered useless when you come up against the Hermanns System e-p-o-
Epo gives the user a tremendous advantage....completely unfair but douche bags continue to asslick guys like lagat....
I contribute to not discuss, but to share my observation that so far, you are batting zero, meaning you are striking out with others here.
Your English is better than my Italian or whatever language is your first language, so I give you credit for trying however, you need to be more concise. Seriously, whether you agree or disagree with someone on here is now besides the point. It is difficult to figure out what you are saying.
Sorry man, but I give up after a few lines....seriously.
So you are batting zero and working really hard at it too.
I understand what you were trying to say completely. The High Schoolers just need to read a few more books/medical studies and they'll be up to speed in no time.
It is not the science that is baffling anyone here. It is his ability to communicate effectively.
I am more than twice the age of a high schooler...nice assumption, junior.
not skuj wrote:
You know, all this time I thought this Lydiard-hater was Skuj. Now I'm convinced it's actually Antonio-wellnow is right! Did you see how quickly the posts were deleted when someone accused it's Antonio while all the cries of Skuj didn't do much good? Of course, the honorary coach of letsrun shall not be bad-mouthed. So I expect this to be removed very quickly and then we'll know...
Hahaha......well, your post is still there, so it must be me!!!
(Why do I bother to go to letsrun and search "skuj" anymore?)
Wet Coast wrote:
I contribute to not discuss, but to share my observation that so far, you are batting zero, meaning you are striking out with others here.
Your English is better than my Italian or whatever language is your first language, so I give you credit for trying however, you need to be more concise. Seriously, whether you agree or disagree with someone on here is now besides the point. It is difficult to figure out what you are saying.
Sorry man, but I give up after a few lines....seriously.
So you are batting zero and working really hard at it too.
Yes. Your english is better than your italian.
And what is contribute to the issue of debate ?
Wet Coast wrote:
Your English is better than my Italian or whatever language is your first language.
You win. But one innocent question. If you don’t understand what I write how do you know that what i say is right or wrong ?
I taught that your mother language is the Kiwi because you are not able to write in another language.
Sadly i understand everything that comes from palls with the Lydiard paradigm.
Besides if your contribute is to comment my writing and to figure out this debate as batting i guess that your contribute is useless to the debate.
In my poor english my opinion is that you all understand quite well what i’m talk about except Mr. Nobby. He doesn’t understand because he doesn’t reply or he doesn´t show enthusiasm to debate about Snell or Lydiard.
You understand but you disagree with everything even with the numbers !
Then the obvious excuse. It’s my poor language.
Are the numbers that i write different than your ones ?
On behalf of Nobby wrote:
[quote]shockwave wrote:
1min-89min, 2-88, 3-87, 4-86, 5-85, 6-84, 7-83, 8-82, 8-82, 9-81, 10-80, 11-79, 12-78, 13-77, 14-76, 15-75, 16-74, 17-73, 18-72, 19-71, 20-70, 21-69, 22-68, 23-67, 24-66, 25-65, 26-64, 27-63, 28-62, 29-61, 30-60, 31-59, 32-58, 33-57, 34-56, 35-55, 36-54, 37-53, 38-52, 39-51, 40-50, 41-49, 42-48, 43-47, 44-46, 45-45, 46-44, 47-43, 48-42, 49-41, 50-40, 51-39, 52-38, 53-37, 54-36, 55-35, 56-34, 57-33, 58-32, 59-31, 60-30, 61-29, 62-28, 63-27, 64-26, 65-25, 66-24, 67-23, 68-22, 69-21, 70-20, 71-19, 72-18, 73-17, 74-16, 75-15, 76-14, 77-13, 78-12, 79-11, 80-10, 81-9, 82-8, 83-7, 84-6, 85-5, 86-4, 87-3, 88-2, 89-1?
According to the research done in Zimbabwe, all the runs would have to be done in minutes exactly. If you get into seconds (for example, 23 minutes and 36 seconds, etc.), then the training effect would be wasted by 0.27%.
Good style. I like it. It enforces my opinion.
The question why 30-60min is best among others is what is ridiculous and I am right that might be whatever duration.
I see that you agree with me. I didn’t lost my time because while being ridiculous – you don´t ! - you help me to show how silly is to think that 30-60min is good over another formula.
not skuj wrote:
You know, all this time I thought this Lydiard-hater was Skuj. Now I'm convinced it's actually Antonio - wellnow is right! Did you see how quickly the posts were deleted when someone accused it's Antonio while all the cries of Skuj didn't do much good? Of course, the honorary coach of letsrun shall not be bad-mouthed. So I expect this to be removed very quickly and then we'll know...
I haven't read through this thread, but Antonio Cabral is the anti Nobby troll. It's just jealousy since Nobby is the co founder of the Lydiard Foundation. He's not a Lydiard hater though. If he posted less obsessively, he might be able to get his points across.
wellnow wrote:
I haven't read through this thread, but Antonio Cabral is the anti Nobby troll. It's just jealousy since Nobby is the co founder of the Lydiard Foundation. He's not a Lydiard hater though. If he posted less obsessively, he might be able to get his points across.
wellnow, you are absolutely right (again). Skuj might be a Lydiard-hater but Antonio is definitely Nobby-hater for whatever the reason.
shockwave wrote:
In my poor english my opinion is that you all understand quite well what i’m talk about except Mr. Nobby. He doesn’t understand because he doesn’t reply or he doesn´t show enthusiasm to debate about Snell or Lydiard.
I mean, can he be a little less obvious? How old is he, 15? Oh, that's right, most of letsrun participants are between 12 and 19! Sad to have such a jealous guy as our "official" coach tho.
not skuj wrote:
Skuj might be a Lydiard-hater but Antonio is definitely Nobby-hater for whatever the reason.
I can assure you that I don't hate Lydiard, and Cabral does not hate Nobby. How anyone at letsrun can come to these conclusions is beyond my comprehension level.
I do have a big problem with the way some Lydiardites ascribe nearly everything to Lydiardism, and the way that most Lydiard threads here end up is actually a testament to that zealousness.