Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners

Northern Star,

Could you please email me?? Thanks!

Also, don't be fooled by Antonio's apparent railing against Lydiard. This website contains hundreds and hundreds of his posts and many posts where he is suspected using a pseudonym.

Anyway, he loves the Lydiard method and coaches by it. See this interview here, where he claims to embrace the Lydiard way:

http://athleticsillustrated.com/interviews/cabral-antonio/

Antonio,

Your line of reasoning suffers from something I'll call "The Highlander Fallacy". It is your endless quest to find the "holy grail" training approach that can be called "The One", in order to declare once and for all, that all others are wrong.

To illustrate what you mean by "Lydiard's wrong conclusions", you give us examples of other runners of the era with equal performances, that trained a different way. Since you think "there can be only one", then it must be self-evident that these counter-examples demonstrate the wrongness of Lydiard's approach. But all that really demonstrates is that there is more than one way to train, to obtain similar performances. And these counter-examples actually highlight the irrelevance of any wrong conclusions (at least in the '60s). If Lydiard could get Murray Halberg, and others, to run equal performances to other great interval trained athletes of the time, then just exactly how wrong can Lydiard's conclusions be?

Another important distinction to make is the difference between "interval training" and Lydiard's "anaerobic training". You are confounding the terms by attempting to use them interchangeably. Something you know very well is that not all interval training is "anaerobic training" the way Lydiard meant it. It's possible to use interval training every day, year round, and still observe an "aerobic phase" that excludes "anaerobic training". Lydiard said it was a mistake to include "anaerobic training" (the kind of high volume, high effort workout that lowers the arterial blood pH, and requires two days to recover before doing it again), in the "aerobic phase". If Zatopec and others did interval training every day, they were surely not the high volume of "anaerobic training" workouts like Lydiard would use during his "anaerobic phase".

Those were Lydiard quotes from "The New England Runner" interview. Lydiard said the Moroccans were using his system, not Antonio.

systems wrote:

So the Moroccans are using your system Antonio? Is that why they are running so badly?

El Gerrouj did short recoveries, because he knew that they made him more efficient. Do you think that if you had coached him he would have run much faster?

Yes, when Antonio gets going, it's hard to sort out all the information he gives.To answer your question, I don't know. Maybe no one has ruled it out completely.Aerobic Capacity (aka VO2max) is easily measured, and as far as I know, there is nothing to suggest that it can significantly improve continuously in the long term.I will defer to Dr. Stephen Seiler, who, when talking about the sources of performance related improvements, suggests that:- VO2max related improvements occur quickly, e.g. 1-2 years- Lactate threshold related improvements are next, maybe 3-4 years- Efficiency related changes continue in the long termThe original website is gone, but the material can be found here:http://vivaa.ca/download/doc_download/41-the-time-course-of-training-adaptations.html (link doesn't work but a google cache does)http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/EXERCISE%20PHYSIOLOGY.pdf (on page 92)

ACmilan wrote:

There's just so much to sort out. Initially my intention was to sort through Mr C's last post, however, it seems there is only one question to ask.

Is there any evidence that aerobic capacity is not unlimited?

Wetcoast wrote:

Northern Star,

Could you please email me?? Thanks!

Also, don't be fooled by Antonio's apparent railing against Lydiard. This website contains hundreds and hundreds of his posts and many posts where he is suspected using a pseudonym.

Anyway, he loves the Lydiard method and coaches by it. See this interview here, where he claims to embrace the Lydiard way:

http://athleticsillustrated.com/interviews/cabral-antonio/

Seems more like he embraces ALL training philosophies from that article. For example, it sounds like he would start your typical hobby jogger on interval training sooner than later, whereas he may add more aerobic work for a converted sprinter WHILE maintaining some speed.

I for one am soooo tired of Lydiard drones crediting him for the "base phase" and now I see his system is being "defined" by "running by feeling". If anything, mastering the Interval system requires more running by feeling as most people screw it up and typically the most of the intervals too fast. Pirie stated that the "interval system is very destructive unless Gerschler's rules are adhered to."

Also Gerschler/Pirie ,noted that the athlete should do "a great deal of general running in the forest, including a lot of hills. As you get fitter, you can add interval training". Gerschler definitely predates Lydiard by at least a decade, if not two. Bannister ran cross country to get fit for track. Yet for some reason any training program that starts off with general running to build fitness is credited as being a derivative of Lydiard training.

Admittedly, the Lydiard system is more "idiot proof" since "marathon training phase" requires less sensitivity on the coach's part to prevent injury and burn out. The athlete may self adjust by slowing the pace down himself as coaches are seldom with them during the long runs. Also the less attentive coach may be able to "get away with" as far as not injuring his athlete with 1 to 2 months of poorly supervised interval training.

Mr. Cabral sounds like a very attentive as well as knowledgable coach and thus is able to safely incorporate various forms training in his athletes such as year around "speed/interval/anaerobic work".

In general, the better the coach the more "dangerous" interval type training one can incorporate.

Do you kno much rest time Lydiard suggested between his intervals?

wascallywobert wrote:

Do you kno much rest time Lydiard suggested between his intervals?

It depended on what sort of intervals you were doing and why. Bill Baillie's rule of thumb was "long reps/short recovery, short reps/long recovery." If the idea is to adapt to fast running, i.e. short reps, you want to run each rep fast so you want to recover between reps. Longer reps are more of a strength building session, more like a fast distance run, so you'd simulate that with slower reps and shorter recoveries.

I've done some backreading now, both some recent past Lydiard threads and specifically Cabral. I see what you are saying, he throws a lot of fairly large concepts together into one reply. However, it is clear he doesn';t have his own personal understanding of them. Ne has borrowed them from other people and is now parading them as his own thoughts. He is also somewhat socially psychopathic. I also feel he has something personal against Lydiard. Maybe something happened in the past? Portugal is one of the few nations that wholeheartedly took on Lydiard's understanding. Cabral is Portuguese so i would have thought he would be pro-Lydiard. So that's why i wonder is something personal has happened. Or perhaps he is just a rebel who will always take the opposite side?

Ok thankyou. I somewhat aware of the science as my Bachelor Degree is in Applied Sports Science. I personally haven't found anything that refutes Lydiard's claims, so the search continues. Not that i am looking for something to refute hem with. That would be impossible in my opinion as he is correct and when science can analyse it properly they will show it to be true. For now i just rely on my own experience and exploration. The only way to answer this issue is through the field of 'feel'.

This is irrelevant for most people though. Most have preparatory steps to take before they can even start to explore this idea of 'unlimited aerobic endurance' (endurance may be a better word than capacity in this case).

cheers

It is you Rekruner , not me that comes to this debate named Sir.Murray Halberg. Do you understand ? As you push that envelope of argument i just followed that line of consideration and the truth id that during the same period that Murray Halberg did progress by Lydiard training his best performances by Lydirad training a bunch of other runners out of thne Lydiard system did similar results WITH THE INTERVAL TRAINING METHOD that Lydiard DID criticize and that from Lydiard THAT HE BUILT HISOWN SYSTEM. YOU said it.

Otherwise if you want for other period rather than the 60s we will see what´s from the world top do use intervals or don´t during the early-introductory phase.

Facts are Facts. EVERY DECADE YOU WANT TO ANALYZE; EVERY HISTORIC PERIOD FROM DISTANCE EVENTS from 800m to the marathon - from the world best you will get less than 5% of runners missing interval training during the introductory phase, most of them do intervals, all year round.

Consequently the "aerobic unlimited" and the "aerobic first", both Lydiard ideas are not necessary. Only it might be done by training individualization or any special runner need but both the aerobic first and the Lydiard "aerobic unlimited" as concepts, Lydiard ideas, method, Lydiard training prescribe or Lydiard training application are useless and with no meaning or training methdology sustain and support.

About the pace of the intervals, for the porpose of this debate it really

doesn´t matter if they are fast or slow, because each coach do that differently, and it´s hard to get a consensus about what ´s hard intervals related to aerobic or anaerobic percents. What really matters it´s that Lydiard interdicts intervals during the marathon block, or aerobic phase, whether be hard or easy. Lydiard always deny the interest of it. Only recent, Lydiard revisionists does refer some easy intervals sparsely during the Lydiard marathon block. But Lydiard stand against that revisionist procedure.

Go back to some old Nobby posts on the board and he fights against the idea that Lydiard ever precribes intervals during the aerobic first.

But finally about your question what pace are the intervals, i want to clear you doubt. The "hard/fast" short intervals with short recovery that Lydiard criticizes the american runners are quite the same intervals that Lydiard did during the anaerobic phase. Did i made myself clear ? ! The same intervals that Lydiard criticizes are the same type he did during Lydiard anaerobic phase. Simply as he thinks that:

1/Aerobic is unlimited

2/ aerobic first

3/short and fast/hard intervals with short recovery shall be avoid during before the anaerobic phase, because it´s anaerobic, leads to injury, fears of peak before the right moment etc...

helloooo Wetcoast ! Be welcome ! Since long ago !

It praised me that you broke your "desert travel" to post and comment on me. From the one it comes i´m very proud.

However i see that for some reason my posts trouble you, you concern about that as much as you feel the need to post about me. I guess that i´m a coach case of study in your mind or you didn´t care.

It´s true i did hundreds of posts on the Lydiard method. However to be fair you forget to inform the young Northern Star apprentice that i bet that i did hunderds of posts which the subject is training methodology and training debate and i didn´t approach the Lydiard subject. Right ? Also you may be gentle and say that my early and only intention and motivation of comment on Lydiard it´s after that i see that there were been thousand of posts that the only issue contain is Lydiard in total agreement. then i ask myself. Why that from one kind of training that is so outdate ? Because most people, people of good will, they don´t possess the information that i do about the same subject.

Be gently and please you might inform Northern Star that my writing on this board isn´t as anti-Lydiard as your write that is 110% pro-Lydiard.

My writing doesn´t exceed your interviews contain which the subject os nothing but just pro-Lydiard. On this interview matter you might also inform him that you ask me an interview that supposedly is about me and my training or you wouldn´t ask me that i couldn´t talk about Lydiard training, as you did, i will accept that your condition and the first thing that you write on that interview it´s to introduce your questions and my answers with Lydiard considerations from your friends and from the ones that you attached in terms of Lydiard training philosophy.

By read my posts about Lydiard comment you can change your opinion about Lydiard training, but i know you don´t. On that matter you are a lost case. But at least you could understand my irony, you are a writer, you write very well, your write style is very good indeed, english is not my mother language but i see you got a good writing style. i can accept your write talent with no problem. But aren´t you able to understand my irony ? If i ever said that i agree with Lydiard, you that you did interview me, you got to be journalist ethic to understand and report it, and not lie and be tendentious to Northern Star or everyone else while say that

i´m a Lydiardist. Are you able to understand what in irony it´s a "figure of style" ?

You try to be funny, but then you aren´t able that the other part replies you with the same kind of funny.

^ egomanical idiot posting ^

Northern Star wrote:

Antonio I will hopefully answer your concerns later tonight, though just as a first remark I think you misinterpreted something I said earlier; a middle distance runner could (if he or she so desired) do some fast/relaxed 200s once every 2-3 weeks in the "base" phase, not 2-3 times PER week. Anyhow I am in a bit of a rush but I'll try to answer the issues you raised tonight or tomorrow.

I understood you quite well on that point. However this your "if he or she so desired) do some fast/relaxed 200s once every 2-3 weeks in the "base" phase"

it´s a your own opinion, but you relate it to Lydiard training. the problem is that as far as Lydiard training concerns Lydiard didn´t accept that your alternative, never wrote allowing it, but most of what he said is in conflict with that your opinion. Lydiard doesn´t think that any kind of intrevals, be hard, fast/relaxed etc shall be more effective than continuous runs during the build up phase. Mr. Nobby did write on this board and he said that "Lydiard

doesn´t admit any kind intervals" during the marathon block

Therefore the option of 200s is out of the Lydiard method Might be i´m wrong, so please let me know where it´s said BY LYDIARD the use of 200s whatever kind of intervals during the marathon/build up/aerobic phase ?

I guess that this intervals option/alternative is as "invention" of the Lydiard revisionists (the ones that on the present did create a different Lydiard.

Peter Snell admits it ? But Peter isn´t Lydiard. besides long ago Lydiard refused the "new" Snell ideas about training. If you want to know, Lydiard quit out training Peter on his late career because Peter wants run different than Lydiard ideas and refused to run the Lydiard own training advice.

Finally, once again it´s very curious, but not by chance that you and some others, so concern about physiology accuracy, lactate, aerobic/anaerobic define, but you keep on undefined training. After all what is your " fast/relaxed 200s once every 2-3 weeks" ? How many 200s, how much recoevery, in what pace, what´s 200s pace that you define by fast/relaxed. This is accuracy intervals as well and create confusion.

About modern and old training, i guess that you aren´t right. The fact that one training is modern or old, it´s not just by how long, or chronology. The training is modern (or more actual) how much his principles and application does better progress and better improve, and not how old or young he is. For example. Lydiard does signs of modernity despite 50 years old. The emphasis on mileage and the need of improve aerobics as the base of distance event performance improve, that side Lydiard is hiper-modern. But the way he does season periodisation, how he sees and does the intervals it´s old outdate training. What he thinks about the need of weekly long run for 800m to Hm runners it´s outdate, despite that long run might mean more mileage probably. the concept of modern training it´s not simply because it´s new, and it´s not old just because the number of years that was been build.

Soon, i will show you the training of Gordon Pirie that is as old as Murray Halberg, but despite i don´t agree with that all, i will show you that got signs of modernity about intervals.

I willn´t be tempted by what Wetcoast wants with his post. He wants nothing but do one "fait divers". He want´s to transfer the Lydiard debate to my own person and my own training.I willn´t do it, the debate it´s about Lydiard and by my side it will keep as did start.

Wetcoast did the opportunity to ask me all about my training, i just confine myself to his interview model, to confine to answer the questions he ask me previously. If he would ask me about my training a different angle,other questions, i will got the opportunity to approach my training differently. For example, he feared to ask me about training individualization. Why ? Because he fears my and John Hadd opinions about the training individualization approach denies Lydiard training. For the same reason he fears ask me something about Lydiard or doesn´t allow me to talk about it.

I willn´t fall on the trap to move this debate from Lydiard to my own training.

Well said. There are a bunch of legendary coaches who say the same thing.

Well said again.

You are making a very simple mistake with this paragraph. You need to separate two different groups if you are going to analyse things this way. The first group is the only group you think exist, the double periodisers. They attempt to peak twice in a given year. The other group are the single periodisers. They onviously need to peak only once in the year. I challenge you to find a single periodiser who does your anaerobic intervals all year. A simple challenge for you Mr Cabral.

So let me get this right. You don't understand (even though thousands do) so you simply throw it out. Nice work.

No it's not.

This is easily explainable. The ideal is to avoid spending training time doing activities which will just detrain when not being maintained, so more time can be spent in training those things that will. If you run fast intervals many months before a peak race you will lose those gains, unless you maintain them all the way through. You choose to maintain all the way through. This just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure how it makes sense to you to be honest. Let me hazard a guess.

A 'modernist' like yourself displays the insecurities of some of the coaching profession. You need to keep constant check on where your athletes are at in relation to some imagined 'race pace' they will run in the future. This is simply the fear of the unknown. Since the only real measurements of your athletes are with a stopwatch you simply have no other choice of analysis. You cannot use your eyes for one thing, except to use the stopwatch of course. This is ignorant coaching largely driven by insecure people. I have no time for it. But this is America and all are free to say whatever they want. Is it true is another question entirely.

ACmilan wrote:

I see what you are saying, he throws a lot of fairly large concepts together into one reply. However, it is clear he doesn';t have his own personal understanding of them. Ne has borrowed them from other people and is now parading them as his own thoughts. He is also somewhat socially psychopathic. I also feel he has something personal against Lydiard. Maybe something happened in the past? Portugal is one of the few nations that wholeheartedly took on Lydiard's understanding. Cabral is Portuguese so i would have thought he would be pro-Lydiard. So that's why i wonder is something personal has happened. Or perhaps he is just a rebel who will always take the opposite side?

When the physiology of on Bachelor Degree is in Applied Sports Science it´s not enough to contest what i say, here comes the personal, social, psychology and nationalist argument to face training methodology.

Don´t you understand that this your attempt to be provocative, i really don´t matter. It´s pure speculation, from an anonymous post.

Running Historian wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:

Emil Zatopek the multi medalist in the Olympics and the multi world recordist was the first man to run a sub 14:00 in the 5000m. Effectively his 13:57.2 done in 1954, just a few weeks after Sir. Roger Bannister broke the 4:00 WR, we might agree it´s not bad for the period.

I am sorry but Gunder Haag of Sweden ran 13 mins 58.x secs for 5000m in the 1940s, almost a decade before Zatopek got the world record. From written accounts, Haag trained using Holmer's fartlek training, mostly in nature away from the track.

You are right about Gunder Hagg. Sometimes google and pick from the internet poor source results in this kind of mistakes.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

When the physiology of on Bachelor Degree is in Applied Sports Science it´s not enough to contest what i say, here comes the personal, social, psychology and nationalist argument to face training methodology.

Don´t you understand that this your attempt to be provocative, i really don´t matter. It´s pure speculation, from an anonymous post.

I'm here now. Let me describe what you said in another, more truthful way.

You don't want to respond to what i said, even though there is clearly something to respond to. Instead you create what you call a 'fait divers' so you do not have to answer.

So let me explain myself a little more thoroughly so my intentions can't be so easily mistaken.

I have a few Portuguese friends so nothing i have said has any 'Nationalist' undertones. In fact one of these friends is in a bad way, he has lung cancer and the medicos have decided it's terminal as his first two treatments of chemo/radio didn't halt the problem. It is getting hard to communicate with him as he slowly shuts down. his mind isn't what it was 6 months ago before the chemo. It's sad of course but when you consider he hasn't stopped smoking through all of this you have to chalk it up to 'self-abuse end-game'. He lived in New jersey for the last 15 years but is back with his family in Lisbon now. I debated bringing him up to simply illustrate a point, however i decided it is also honoring him. His name is Sergio Oliviera.

As for personal, yes maybe there is some. I figure it's only fair when you continuously add adjectives like 'silly', 'stupid' and even 'moronic' before the word Lydiard. You want to be this disrespectful to what is generally recognised as the highest light in world Distance Running, then be prepared to take a little back.

As for the social and psychological - can you show me what exactly what i said so i can respond?

You forgot historical, but having covered your 'list' we are now left with science. I like science. It is the yardstick to measure ones internal experiences with. It is factual to a point. That point is illustrated easily. The earth was flat once upon a time. The sun used to revolve around the earth and we were the center of the universe. These things went beyond fact and Galileo was almost executed for saying such things. Almost funny in retrospect.

Moving to something a little more recent and closer to home we have the most recent advances of Sports Science's understanding of physiology. Recently the facts of Lactic Acid have been replaced with the facts that there is no lactic acid. Now lactate is an anaerobic fuel whereas before it was a poison. The facts keep changing. This is why it is wise to not take anything for granted and to always keep your critical hat on when looking at something new.

So not being able to take everything science says as 'the gospel truth' is an important step forward. It also must be said that it is unwise to ignore science. A happy medium should exist.

Looking forward to your reply

bump

Isn't the idea behind these pamphlets to summarize the coach's philosophy? If so, why is Antonio on here ranting about how wrong Lydiard was? It doesn't matter!