Lydiard Training Advice; the Morning Run

António,

It's precisely because I know what you wrote, and I know what you mean, and I know what Lydiard wrote, that I won't concede. It still pains me to see how you describe Lydiard, and what you conclude.

For Christchurch's sake, you wrote that co-ordination is about bio-mechanics?!?! We've been through this already, and you even admitted then that Lydiard's "coordination" includes "specific training". Go back to the link you gave me, and search for "co-ordination". Does that describe "bio-mechanics"? Couldn't you call that "progressive race specificity"? Wouldn't that provide the delicate "anaerobic/aerobic" balance you described earlier was missing in the general phases, that you refused to debate?

Getting back to "infinite", Lydiard never says, or implies that VO2max is unlimited/infinite, or that "aerobic adaptations" occur forever (only for the "cardiac system"). At some point, these physiological things max out, but yet aerobic training still continues to produce performance improvements (for reasons linked to other things like running economy, neuro-muscular coordination, optimized running form, etc.)

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of argument. Because I feel like arguing. Assume Lydiard said aerobic progression is infinite (which he didn't). How does even this EXTREME statement (given as a SIMPLIFIED explanation to young developing athletes) compare to modern training? Let's see what Canova said (albeit a long time ago).

I found an old (2004) comment from Renato (addressing a question "Did Coe really only run 60 miles per week") which might be relevant:

+-----

Every man needs from 10 to 12 years for building his "aerobic house". If you are Gebre, your house may be a skyscraper 60 floors high ; if you are a non talented amateur, may be a small house of only 2 floors. But, in any case, you need more than 10 years for changing your attitudes, your physiology, your mind. After this period (I repeat, 10-12 years), also if you don't train more with big volume you don't lose your qualities, that are CONSOLIDATED.

When you arrive at that level, the best road is to reduce the volume of general training (that cannot give you any advantage, but can increase the wear and tear of your body and the risk of some injury) having the focus of improving yet a little in the volume of "specific training".

For example, speaking about a marathon runner, if you want to build your base for a big future race, and you are 18y old, you can increase your weekly mileage (connected with "general training") in this way (attention, is only an example) :

18 years : 60 miles (80% general + 20% specific)

19 years : 70 miles (80% + 20%)

20 years : 80 miles (80% + 20%)

21 years : 100 miles (75% + 25%)

22 years : 120 miles (75% + 25%)

23 years : 140 miles (75% + 25%)

24 years : 140 miles (70% + 30%)

25 years : 150 miles (70% + 30%)

26 years : 150 miles (65% + 35%)

27 years : 150 miles (60% + 40%)

28 years : 160 miles (60% + 40%)

29 years : 150 miles (55% + 45%)

30 years : 140 miles (50% + 50%)

32 years : 120 miles (40% + 60%)

35 years : 80 miles (20% + 80%)

After the period used for consolidating the change in your physiology, you can reduce the general volume, using also other type of training (swimming, cross skiing, cycling ecc.) for keeping your basic aerobic condition.

+-----

Looks like my 7-10 years estimate of long term aerobic development was too short. The modern correction to Lydiard's (alleged) "infinite" aerobic improvement has been confirmed to be 10-12 years. Thereafter it's aerobic maintenance. What can your point possibly be about "unlimited/infinite"? That it's really only 10-12 years? In a sport where 17 years is a lifetime, exactly what's the difference, apart from 5 years?

Wait -- it's not me who should explain modern methods, or you are all doomed, and I will be forced to admit that I was wrong. I'm sure I gave search strings for further research.But here's an explanation that shows how interval training above the AnT, can be considered speed for the marathon, but aerobic support for the 800m, borrowed from Renato (from the long thread):+-----a) I think that the level of aerobic training must be connected with the specific training. The AEROBIC SUPPORT cannot be too much far from the specific speed that athletes have to use normally in their competition. So, we cannot speak about AEROBIC ENDURANCE only in one way.In my opinion, EVERY SPEED SLOWER OF MORE THAN 80% OF THE SPEED OF THE RACE HAS NO MEAN OF TRAINING, BUT OF REGENERATION BETWEEN THE REAL WORKOUTS.An example : if I run a Marathon in 2:10 (3:05 per km pace), 18.5 is 100% of the speed every 100m, so 80% of the speed is 3:05 + 37.0 = 3:42. From this speed TRAINING FOR BUILDING RESISTANCE BEGINS, not slower.But, if I run 10000m in 28:20 (2:50 per km), my 80% is 2:50 + 34.0 = 3:24. If I run slower than this speed, I go for a regenerative work, not for a real training.This is true in the field of the event DIRECTLY INFLUENCED BY THE THRESHOLD. But, when we speak about LACTIC EVENTS (like already 3000m SC, or 1500, or of course 800m) the aerobic level that we need must be more or less high, in order to support the LACTIC ENDURANCE and/or the LACTIC CAPACITY, that have a specific role in the specific event.What is for me LACTIC ENDURANCE ? Is the quality connected with the ANAEROBIC THRESHOLD and with the LACTIC CAPACITY at the same time.What is for me the LACTIC CAPACITY ? Is the quality connected with the LACTIC ENDURANCE and the LACTIC POWER at the same time.May be that my terminology is different from your, so I try to explain me with an example.I am able running, at 4 mmol, at a speed of 3:10 per km, and when I try to run 600m at my max speed, I can run 1:20.With this attitude, my type of training can be :a) What I want slower than 3:40 (till 2:30) : GENERAL RESISTANCE (not specific, also for Marathon)b) From 1 hr to 1:30 at 3:30 : AEROBIC RESISTANCE (in part specific for Marathon, not specific but general for the other events)c) From 40:00 to 1:10 at 3:10/3:15 : AEROBIC POWER "1st level" (speed for Marathon, specific for HM, special for 10000m, aerobic support for steeple and 5000m, general for 1500 and 800)d) Intervals at 105/110 % of the AnT (2:52 > 3:00 per km) using distances between 1000 and 3000m : AEROBIC POWER "2nd level" (speed for Marathon and HM, specific for 10000m, special for 5000 and steeple, aerobic support for 1500 and 800m)e) 10 / 15 times 600m in 1:36 / 1:38 with short recovery (1:30, for example) : LACTIC ENDURANCE (connected with AEROBIC POWER "2nd level" and LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE)f) 6 / 8 times 600m in 1:27 / 1:30 with medium recovery (2:30, for example) : LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE (connection with LACTIC ENDURANCE and LACTIC CAPACITY)g) 3 / 4 times 600m in 1:23 rec. 6 / 8 min : LACTIC CAPACITY (connected with LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE and LACTIC POWER)h) 1 time 600m in 1:20 (max speed) : LACTIC POWER.The different speed are connected between, but for every speed you can find the direct support only from the speed immediately slower (for endurance), and from the speed immediately faster (for speed).So, every speed is a different mean of training. The difference between the old and the modern system, is that in the old we considered only 3 big groups of speed : AEROBIC very slow, developing volume at low intensity, LONG RUN at AnT level, developing endurance at medium intensity, and SPEED ENDURANCE, running short intervals very fast.Now, we can see that the connection among so far speeds are very little, and is difficult to improve : there is no connection between running 400m in 55.0 and the marathon, but there is also no connection between running 2 hours at 4:00 or 3:45 per km, and 1500m in 3:35.So, we use now more speeds in training, very close, giving them a different mean. RUNNING AT 3:20 is VERY DIFFERENT from running at 3:10, BUT FOR THE MOST PART OF THE ATHLETES IS HE SAME (Long Fast run at personal sensation).Running on the track 5 times 3000m in 8:20 for a runner able to do 26:30 in 10000m, is something UNDER RHYTM, but is a SPECIFIC SUPPORT different from long run. When you are able running it, you can run 10 x 1000 no more in 2:42, but in 2:36, for example. SO, THE DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPECIFIC SUPPORT ON THE SPECIFIC TRAINING IS VERY BIG.So, personally, I don't have care about mmol and the classic ideas of Thresholds, but I look at THE SPECIFIC SUPPORT for every distance.+-----

Randy Oldman wrote:

Explain.

rekrunner wrote:

Aerobic for 800m is not the same as aerobic for 10K.

Actually, for modern training, Renato writes the most detailed explanations (but it takes some skill to find it and read it).Here is a pretty juicy thread that has everything but "circuits" (not 4 but 15 pages -- but you don't need to read them all):http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2959804

Barakus Obama wrote:

Also, you mention that there are better ways of training, but do not mention the methods. That would be nice, no need to write four pages about it, just mention it and perhaps paste a link in at the bottom.

Now i like more what you say. And I may respond.

You continue with one basic mistake, the same that Lydiard does. It´s the relationship between aerobic and anaerobic percent an how it shall be done.

First of all the sequence (only one example) I might accept your as an example of age/mileage/aerobic-anaerobic-percent progression, it´s all right, and I might comment on that .

18 years : 60 miles (80% general + 20% specific)

19 years : 70 miles (80% + 20%)

20 years : 80 miles (80% + 20%)

21 years : 100 miles (75% + 25%)

22 years : 120 miles (75% + 25%)

23 years : 140 miles (75% + 25%)

24 years : 140 miles (70% + 30%)

25 years : 150 miles (70% + 30%)

26 years : 150 miles (65% + 35%)

27 years : 150 miles (60% + 40%)

28 years : 160 miles (60% + 40%)

29 years : 150 miles (55% + 45%)

30 years : 140 miles (50% + 50%)

32 years : 120 miles (40% + 60%)

35 years : 80 miles (20% + 80%)

This is good, as theory, but this is just fictional, it´s just one guideline. No runner of Canova did follow this mileage progression trough the years and the seasons and trough that referential of ages. No one (here again I need to be careful with your tricky word meaning), not no one, but rarely, very rarely one runner flows this kind of progression and this is not optimal or perfect. Why ?

1/First of all actually the top of shape condition of one runner (the season pbs or best competition results) are nothing like this theory scale/step of mileage (and aerobic versus anaerobic) related to ages. Tell me what´s the runner that lasts 17 years (since 18 to 35) with progressive mileage and that mileage percent ? Who is Bekele, Gebre, Mo Farah, , who is him after all, who are they that we migt use as real examples ? One non professional , an amateur ? Who is him/her ? Peter Snell by the way ? For each that you can name with this kind of age/mileage/aerobic-anaerobic percent you might name I can name much more that did one different training career out of this theory scale. The more in recent times the age of the top is younger for every distance event that you might consider. The world best 800m they did their best performances average age of 27 to 28 years old. So, here goes to the recycle bin, your perfect base build. What´s the actual age of the peak performance or major success for the best marathon runners ? How many years of sequential mileage increase ? here goes your theory to the recycle bin because the facts dismiss this “your/Canova” perfect season progress.

2/second point is that I still don´t understand. Did you heard or read Canova says or write that during this age/mileage/aerobic versus anaerobic percents there´s one period exclusive to build the aerobic house like Lydiard aerobic first ?

3/third point is this. Not just the aerobic enhance is finite and not infinite (or as you like – is not unlimited but limited) as the aerobic enhance DEPENDS of the anaerobic enhance as well. Lydiard doesn´t know, he just didn´t know as you might read in the ARTHUR LYDIARD’S LECTURE

or every other that the PERFORMANCE ENHANCE NOT JUST DEPENDS FROM THE AEROBIC SYSTEM ENHANCE BUT ALSO FROM THE ANAEROBIC SYSTEM (up to this point he knews) BUT ALSO THAT IN ONE DISTANCE PERFORMANCE THE DEPENDENCE Goes in both directions, as to say, the higher aerobic pace depends of the anaerobic enhance and vice versa. When you see one performance enhance this is always consequence of better anaerobic and not just consequence of better aerobic. Since one performance in any distance event requires ALWAYS one relationship in between aerobic and anaerobic, the higher percent that the runner uses from one system the less percent he uses from the other. Say it different way. When we got lactate production, if a higher lactate clearance power we got less possibility of lactate accumulation and vice-versa. This is one of the main reasons why modern training says that in most of the cases to dedicate one long period (weeks and months just dedicated to improve the aerobic system is useless, in parallel with try to include aerobic and anaerobic stimulus during the same micro or mesocycle, in different paces and different percents of course along the season. To say 80%aerobic and 20% anaerobic doesn´t mean that we did something most of the aerobic percent in one buld-up period and most of the 20% anaerobic in another I quote Alberto Salazar that says the same but in better english than my own:

Alberto Salazar “We do speed consistently year round. We never give the body anything that it’s not accustomed to. I don’t believe in systems like the Lydiard system where they times of no speed. The body likes consistency. We always have some of it in the mix. We just use different intensities at different times of the year.

4/I know very well what is Lydiard coordination phase, and that is different to what I said. But since that I say in on of my answers that Lydiard lexicon-terminology doesn´t fit at all in modern terminology, and that ´Lyiard names in the attempt to describe paces, zone paces, percents of effort, stimulus, training phases , like the Lydiard concepts of “fast” “aerobic” “anaerobic” “interval training” all that is quite impossible to debate in related to the modern universal accepted terminology, this as like most of the Lydiard, something vague, that each one says different from the same Lydiard source. There when you get into the debate “the Lydiard coordination phase” that is something weird to distance training approach, to have one period dedicated to coordination, I just followed the usual meaning of run coordination, that is mine, the one I wrote and decided to not answer about your/Lydiard coordination – again, is one unhappy inappropriate title. This is the common Lydiard mistake. If you or anyone wants to debate with me about anything in the distance training methodology, you need to name it right, or by the name, or by the meaning, as I did with unlimited, I name it infinite that´s one of the possible meanings of unlimited.

It´s Lydiard or the Lydiardism terminology and Lydiard training concepts that needs to be explained by modern common terminology universal accepted , not all the rest that needs to fit into Lydiard inadequate terminology.

5/ it´s not me that put an emphasis on the 100miles. It’s the Lydiard representatives. Just search the debate “Lydiard versus Canova” on this board and read how many from the Lydiardism they same that more than 100miles it´s damage. I also read one individual to say something like “when I was young I tried more than 100miles and I got injured there (his conclusion) more than 100miles is bad, but 100miles is good.

6/About different aerobic need for different distance EVENTS and not the equal Lydiard marathon mileage and pace training for the different events.

Yesterday I read this, and since I agree I don´t need to say nothing else, just copy and past:

But what is important to remember, is that every distance needs a specific Aerobic Support, that is not the real AnT. For example, in the case of 3000 SC/5000, we can create a MAX LASS (Maximum Lactate Steady State) of 6/8 min at a level of 11-13 mmol of lactate, and the AnT that we need is the speed at a level of 8 mmol about. So, don`t pay attention at the CONVENTIONAL THRESHOLD of 4 mmol, because is something for physiologists, but really in many case doesn´t mean anything.

I try to write the level of lactate that you must use like AEROBIC SUPPORT for the specific workouts in different events :

800m 8-12 mmol

1500m 7-10 mmol

5000m 6-8 mmol

10000m 5-7 mmol

HM 4-5 mmol

Mar 4 mmol

António Cabral wrote:

I try to write the level of lactate that you must use like AEROBIC SUPPORT for the specific workouts in different events :

800m 8-12 mmol

1500m 7-10 mmol

5000m 6-8 mmol

10000m 5-7 mmol

HM 4-5 mmol

Mar 4 mmol

I've asked before but nobody answered me, can either António, rekrunner or someone else please explain what Canova meant with this?

I'm mostly curious about the 800m lactate levels. 8-12 mmol is quite high, quite hard training. Are one supposed to do this instead of, for example threshold intervals?

Or, if you for example have 2 hard workouts during your week, one of them is a non-specific-speed workout (for example 10x400m with 1 min rest) where you go as hard you need to be between 8-12 mmol?

Other than that, great posts, interesting to read.

Wow Antonio. I thought after all this time you couldn't surprise me, and now within a week, you've done it twice.

That was actually civil, and constructive, and informative. Chapeau. Plus punkt.

One minor point -- the percentages were Canova's general/specific and not Lydiard's aerobic/anaerobic.

This Canova example was to illustrate, that "unlimited" development in this sense has to be scaled to the length of an athletic career -- infinity is just beyond retirement. Something is not limiting, if other limits kick in first.

Let's address your points by number:

1) Yeah this progression looks theoretical/ideal. Surely doesn't describe anyone I know, or know of. For one reason, usually injury kicks in and breaks up a couple of those years.

2) I can't find it back, but Canova said something once like "for the beginner, it doesn't matter what kind of periodization you use". You coach a much higher level than me. For that reason, I'm somewhat indifferent to the choice of periodization, while I understand why you think it's important. Using winters and summers as "off-seasons" suits me, and gives me a psychological break.

3) Good point! The two systems can interact with each other, rather than layering one system on top of the other, like frosting on a cake. I'll give you that too.

4) OK -- maybe I missed you actually making a point about lexicology. One problem is that terminology evolves. But once you write something down, it is static. In the 1962 book, you will not find the words "aerobic", and "anaerobic", and "co-ordination" is not a dedicated, labelled phase. Instead you find expressions like "marathon conditioning" and "track training". "Coordination" wasn't the short name of a period, but rather the "final 6 weeks of track training" (the second half of the 12-week "schedule"), where it is unambiguously described as a "coordination of speed and distance work". The system was mature enough in 1962, that it had already produce several Olympic champions. Therefore, I don't really consider terms like "aerobic" and "anaerobic" essential parts of the Lydiard system. What Lydiard presentation seems incomplete without an explanation of oxygen-debt? This concept post-dates the 1962 book, so "oxygen-debt", for me, is also outside the system. (For a good laugh, read the 1962 physiology section, and the nutrition section. Yet he still produced Olympic champions.) These are terms that were added, after the fact, to help later generations understand the concept.

So it seems, what you are asking for, as a pre-condition to discuss with you (or anyone else), is that someone "updates" all of the terms and concepts, so that we are sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm puzzled now, since that seems to be what Keith Livingstone attempted to do -- explain the 1960's and 70's Lydiard with respect to concepts understood today -- and you critiqued him for deviating from Lydiard principles, by borrowing from other modern (or ancient) training concepts. As usual, I think the opposite. We should go back to the 1962 terms, and ignore all these modern terms, and the respective physiology, that seems to have only added confusion.

5) 100 mpw is always accompanied with caveats, and heavily tempered by individual feedback. As I have shown, it can be 100mpw +/- 50mpw (same presentation, given by Lydiard himself, in the 90's). Lydiardites understand that without always saying it.

6) I understand there are different approaches. Lydiard doesn't get specific until the very end. That might be a problem for many.

I'll add one final challenge for you, which would help convince me that modern training is better than Lydiard:

I know you firmly believe that modern "non-linear" training is superior to the outdated Lydiard training. I don't argue for or against that point, but remain neutral, as if both are equally proven effective. But as "proof" you just offered a long list of modern coaches who succeed with something else. That's not compelling, as there is an uncontrolled East African variable. What I want as proof is a list of athletes. Ignoring East Africans, so that we compare Americans/Europeans/Oceanians from different generations, give me some examples of modern trained athletes who have outperformed Lydiard trained/influenced athletes with a superior training methodology.

Well, keep in mind:

- I never once measured my first mmol. For me AnT is 165 bpm, or 1 hour race pace

- I recall that Renato can reach much higher "MAXLASS" mmols with Kenyans than with Europeans, so be careful with the number

If you ask me what he means, I gave a different quote above which should illustrate the concept. And if you ask me, I wonder why you are interested in lactate levels -- do you actually measure them at the track? Seems like there would be some kind of time delay that makes it useless.

But nevermind. It's a bit like Einstein, replacing "absolute" concepts with "relative":

Forget "absolute" thresholds like AeT (MP) and AnT/LT (1 hour race pace) and VO2max (11 minute race pace).

Think instead in terms of "relative" efforts, connected to the speed (and time duration) of your event.

So interesting speeds for the 800m runner are:

200m speed

400m speed

800m speed

1600m speed

3200m speed

Outside that, things get proportionally less interesting. (Similar thing for time.)

If 800m speed is 100%:

95%-105% is "specific"

Less than 80% is "recovery/regenaration" -- 79% has the same training benefit as 1% (hint: none)

"Aerobic support" is more than 80% speed.

For 800m, the last 100-200m is the most important. The aerobic support you require will be needed there and then, and not for longer than 2:00 (I hope). So 8x200m at mile pace would be better "specific aerobic support" for 800m than 10x400m at 10K pace.

Its quite common to have small lactate measure 'machines' in Scandinavia at the moment, one could say the reason for the rise in better times in Norway at the moment partly is because of focus on threshold training. Henrik Ingebrigtsen (5th in Olympic 1500m) use lactate testing regularly. You can buy a small tester for something like 200$.

If testing during threshold training, its important to do it quick, within 40 seconds is fine. During hard training with high levels of lactate, its actually better to wait 60s as the lactate keeps rising for a while after you've stopped running.

The reason people have started using them is to train at the right intensity, your coach can now see if his runners actually run their intervals at threshold or if one of the guys is at 6mmol just to hang with the rest of the group.

Thats the reason I ask, because after using this for a while lactate becomes a great way to measure intensity in training. Your coach can tell you to be between 8-10, and you'll know what intensity that is. [/quote]

But why, isn't aerobic aerobic? Or are you the mile pace workout better because you train your body to be aerobic in a more relevant speed? Or is it simply because the speed is closer to 800 speed than the 400ms would be?

And I'm still curious what he means by aerobic support, 8-12 mmol is high, is this supposed to be done troughout the year? Every week during track preperation?

Might be a lot of questions, sorry about that. But once you fine someone knowledgebal who answers your questions about these things your curious about....well. Thanks in advance.

[

Rekrunner. One break in the debate. I don´t doubt that you are one intelligent individual. I don´t know who you are, and it doesn´t matter me really. I know that you also you know and understand quite a lot about distance training methodology. However I think in some of your posts you do dark humor and side by side with interesting question you do just some ideas that you want to play me for fool or stupid, and you ask questions just to know my opinion. It´s when I try to answer at the same level your post, at the same level of some parts of your posts that you want to pass for unintelligent that you are not, and you want to put me as more unintelligent that you know that I m not. Finally what you really want is to know what I know, you want to know my deep understand of training. Forget it. I don´t lie, but i´m very cautious, and when I say something about training – right or wrong - i´m one step ahead in my training conclusion. For instance, i´m almost absolutely true about that the best way of season periodisation for the distance training approach is not aerobic first, I´m almost absolutely true that the best efficient training for distance approach is combined aerobic with anaerobic training together in the same periods (in different percents) – be a 15 years old boy, or one senior runner, one 60 years old master runner, one 5k 25min runner or one 12:55 5k runner, one 4:00 marathon runner or one 2:10 marathon runner

Ok, I knew and I see it, You just tried to conceptualize what you want to say in one example at you hand/your disposal. I did argument ion it and did accept it to comment but I did that reserve.

1/the need of different training percents of both aerobic and anaerobic systems namely in young beginners related to mature runners,

2/ second is training by different kind of runners related to different both system abilities what I mean by one aspect (just one aspect) of the training individualisation.

It´s not identified with the Lydiard principle of aerobic first. I also may confess that in certain runners I might use something similar to aerobic first, one long period with the miss of anaerobic training. However the reason why I get out of my principles is for a total different kind of reasons that Lydiard training uses aerobic first as a principle of training method. He uses because he WRONGLY things that while the aerobic percent in every middle to long distance run is bigger than the anaerobic percent, then we got a bigger margin of progression if we train more and more aerobics. But this is not true. If it was true the 800m runner and the marathon runner would get more efficiency with just aerobic runs. As this is not true, Lydiard thinks that to build one long period with aerobic training mainly is more efficient than to mix both systems in the same phase/period. Then Lydiard after a long period of almost just aerobic training (for many weeks and months) introduces another period that quite the opposite, one hilly period and one later anaerobic period almost constituted by intervals and quite anaerobic workouts in a day on day on almost. And yeah…the long run.

Rekrunner. Ther´s nothing wrong as the Lydiadists, Keith whatever, to attempt to put Lydiatd with modern lexicon diatance training terminology. It´s welcome. What´s wrong are the Lydiard concepts, well…a few of them, tha few ones I talk about are the root/the source of his training, be interpreted by the old Lydiard lexicon or the modern one. Aerobic first is wrong because is wrong, not because might be named with other modern expression.

But ther´s also another aspect about Lydiard lexicon that I want to let you know. In philosophy we say that every idea wants to be dominant, or didn´t existed. When I say “aerobic first is stupid” despite I concede to everyone democratically that I might not be right about aerobic first, I think my opinion it´s the best one, and it´s out of the Lydiard one opinion. Well…the problem is that at the level of prove my opinion/idea I need to use some ideas/opinions/FACTS out of my conclusion.

Please, pay attention. IF my idea is right or wrong I just can be ELOQUENT in the prove NOT BY MY SENTENCE, but by facts, or by arguments out of my own idea.

To resume: I can´t prove that I think that “aerobic first is stupid” by my/Antonio sentence that “aerobic first is stupid”. I NEED TO MAKE ANALOGIES

Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity (…)

Or Lydiard training doesn´t constitute argument of nothing. Because is the SELF PERFECT training, THE DOMINANT ONE (thinks that is dominant what is just a fantasy), and above all is SELF CENTERED ABSOLUTELY as I don´t know no other one just see the epithet “the perfect one training”, the LYDIRAD training (by Lydiardists) is nothing but a closed redeem, when the main argument justify LYDIARD BY QUOTE LYDIARD. They are so blind to everything that surrounds them, that they got the best training in all nuances in all details. It´s usual see the Lydardism to argue by Lydiard perfromances, by what Lydiard did, by what Lydiard runners they did, by what Lydiard said, and the top of Lydiard absurd argument, those of HRE “Lydiard said to me !”. Of course that if Lydiard taught something he would said that to HRE or anyone else. But they are so blind and so poor in judgement they don´t understand that what Lydiard said it´s not one valid argument, one valid contradictory argument to those who say different than Lydiard.

All this got to do with Lydiard lexicon. He did built one old fashion training lexicon and terminology that didn´t fix in the modern concepts. But if they want to debate any kind of training (niot the the Lydiard one) they can use the Lydiard lexicon and termonlogy. It´s the kind of argument when you reoply to me “but Lydiard uses the SPEED TRAINING…” But what´s speed training ?????, Please formulate it in something correct strongly defined meaning at the light of the trainig methodology not at the dark light of Lydiard lexicon.

Do as you pleased. One way or another training concepts as the long run, the aerobic first, etc etc are not efficient, be would or modern lexicon. Everything (still in the present) can be demonstrate out of physiology. The most powerful distance training knowledge in the training methodology is training technique and statistics, and training contain, and all this can be demonstrate out of any science of sports physiology. What Lydiard new about physiology in 62 is enough to decide and debate about every kind of training. The main problem about Lydiard that Lydiard did some wrong principles not old definitions.

I can´t prove you or convince you from anything. Utterly it´s you that shall learn by yourself. You just might read me, agree or disagree. I didn´t learn that aerobic first is stupid by you or anyone else, neither by Lydiard, Canova, HRE. I did learn by myself. You go to do the same process of learning. At my best I can do some clues to your investigation. Here is one. When we did debate the interest of the Lydiard long run, namely or 800m but not just or 800m, I did ask the participants to let me know from the last 40 years or so, who are top ten the year best (year by year), the olympic ones (olympics by Olympics) W champs, wordl best all time ranking etc WHO FROM THEM DID THE LYDIARD LONG RUN AND WHO DON`T. Actually as ask youto dio the sme exercise. What from the best did the Lydiard season periodisaton and who don´t. There you can get a final conclusion what´s more efficient and what don´t.

The pace support. Let´s use some analogy.

When you sit down on a chair what SUPPORT S your body and weight ? The chair.

When one building is done what supports the roof ? The walls. And what support s the walls ? The foundation of the building. What supports the foundations, the structure, the roots.

When you got a car what supports your car stopped ? The wheels.

What supports your feet on the floor ? The gravity. What supports the moon translation ? The earth attraction. What supports the earth ? The sun.

Is that the same that supports your body weight, that supports the building, that supports the walls , that supports your feet on the floor, that supports etc etc. One thing in common, the gravity , but gravity is not the same gravity force on the moon and on earth.

Now . What is the training supports lactate 10-12mmol ? Do you think that the same training that supports 6-8 mmol might support 8-10mmol ? It´s not obviously. Of course that the aerobic ability/factor (and the anaerobic ability/factor as well ) is common in all middle to long distance runs, IS PRESENT in any kind of distance event, but since the distribution of that percents is different, each Different distance event needs a different AEROBIC SUPPORT. Consequently the define of the Lydiard same aerobic marathon build up phase without a discrimination what´s the different aerobic training support/need for each specility AND MORE IMPORTANT FOR EACH KIND OF RUNNER is inadequate training, inadequate aerobic training in this case.

The knowledge of this fact, is also what makes more important the introduce of some kind of anaerobic training in every phase of the training periodisation. Don´t forget that standard QUALIFIED intervals and standard workouts, that possesses an high stimulation from the anaerobic system but also from high level/zone of the aerobic system. The interval training is the more effective way to train both aerobic and anaerobic training that continuous runs and fartlek doesn´t normally.

middledistanse

Heart rate monitor is more accurate to define what you mean by threshold zone that the lactate metter.

10X400m 1min recovery might be still a bit aerobic to get 12mmol.

For example 3X600m+3X400m+3X200 all flat out (your best pace) with some 5 to 10 minutes recovery is better to get 12mmol on intervals.

We know long ago - it´s proved that the best efficient way to train lactate clearence management is not to run at your lactate thershold precisely, but in zone faster than your lactate threshold.

Another point is that if you want to train your lactate prodution that means carry on/hold on more HIGH lactate concentration, like 800m training shall be for some type fo runners, in this case, train to enhance your lactate threshold is useless or still negative to that your high lactate carry on production.

So for the 10x400 we are talking 1600m race pace, and for the 3x600 (1600 race pace or 2000m pace?), 3x400 (800m pace or 1200m pace?) and 3x200 (400m pace or 600m pace?). Is the 2nd workout all in one session? This seems extremely difficult.

Really? I've always been told that your heart rate changes easily based on a number of variables? Anyway, I've done weekly treshold intervals for a few years now, and both lactate and HR (only use HR sometimes) always seems to be pretty much the same.

Are you saying that threshold training for a pure 800m type of runner is useless, even as aerobic training? Thats how I use it...

Ok, I think I understand. What I'm still curious about is, 8-12mmol is quite high, I would call that hard training. Is this aerobic support training supposed to be done the whole year?

Is a 8-12mmol workout in the fall and winter phases a way to train aerobic support for 800m and at the same time get some anaerobic training? So lets say in Januray, instead of having a anaerobic workout AND a aerobic support workout you just have that one workout that train both specific aerobic support AND it help keep the anaerobic ability at a certain level until competition phase starts?

For example: In early winter: 1 workout like that, but during track preperation/competition phase you have one 8-12mmol aerobic workout AND one pure anaerobic and really hard workout?

Just trying to understand here, were I'm from people basically just train threshold intervals 2-3 times a week + one workout with 200s or 300s up to 8-10mmol.

[quote]António Cabral wrote:

middledistanse

10X400m 1min recovery might be still a bit aerobic to get 12mmol.

For example 3X600m+3X400m+3X200 all flat out (your best pace) with some 5 to 10 minutes recovery is better to get 12mmol on intervals.

/quote]

Just asking for a clarification here, the second workouts is best because its closer to 800m speed? If I did the second workout flat out I would probably be between 15-17 in lactate...

middledistanse wrote:

Really? I've always been told that your heart rate changes easily based on a number of variables? Anyway, I've done weekly treshold intervals for a few years now, and both lactate and HR (only use HR sometimes) always seems to be pretty much the same.

Are you saying that threshold training for a pure 800m type of runner is useless, even as aerobic training? Thats how I use it...

You are right. It because the HR changes easily based on several number of variables precisely that is the best way tp control one zone of effort ! Seems strange to you ? But don´t.

For example if your lactate threshold is 87% of your maximum heart pulse you can be sure that if you are running on 87% of your HR maximum you are in your lactate threshold pace

For instance, lets imagine that your HR maximum is 180. there your 85% HRmaximum is 180*0.85=153.

There you might be for sure that when you run a continuous run at your 85% of your maximum HR there you can continue at that pace and get instantaneous pace control at your threshold, It´s just look for the HR monitor. Of course 85% of your effort is one stimulus that create lactate concentration, but if you take the lactate on one cold day by instance and fix one run pace for your LT, for example 3:10 per kilometer pace, and then you go to run on a heat day you try that 3:10 but you exceed your LT, because the heat (among many variables) moves up your lactate concentration. Right ?

However it´s heat and then your LT threshold pace for that day might be slower pace, but it´s guarantee that if you run on that day at your 85% maximum HR you are run on your lactate threshold precisely.

The other day you got cold fresh weather temperature but imagine that you you are tired from the yesterday workout, ne hard interval training sessions. You take the lactate on that day, because you are tired moves up quickly ans exceeds your threshold lactate concentration despite you run at slower pace than the lactate threshold value you did take previously. However on the day you are tired you are running at slower pace than usual you do your LT runs. But if you follow the pace control on the the 85% HR zone you got to be for sure that you are running at your LT pace.

See, by HR monitor you can take HR percent always ans it´s for free after you got one HRM, and at any moment of the run you can take pulse control instantaneouslyH however you use use the lactate meter machine, you can just take the lactate concentration from minutes period, it´s not as useful and applicable as the HRM, and got that problem that you only can take after some seconds (40 seconds you say ?) and also it´s expensive. each take you need to pay.

I also did some people say somewhere what you say, that lactate meter is better and that HRM fails. But it´s the opposite. You van´t trust in everything that is commercial or intentional or propaganda/advertising which main the target to to sell lactate meters. there they create wrong conclusions in ten mind of the runners.

Yes. lactate threshold in some type of 800m runners is useless. Because if your training direction is to hold on maximum lactate production and carry on maximum lactate accumulation/concentration, to able that high lactate if you train in the direction of lactate clearance, which is the goal of the lactate threshold training, that is to move down the lactate concentration you ar running at the oposite direction that is to train for better lactate acumulation. The LT training doesn´t enable you to create "tons" of lactate, because clean the lactate very quickly. But of course, the volume training of pure steady state aerobic training shall be done for every type of 800m runners.

middledistanse wrote:

Are you saying that threshold training for a pure 800m type of runner is useless, even as aerobic training? Thats how I use it...

I'm interested in this comment.

Peter Coe supposedly said, and I think to an extent referring to 800 runners, that 5km speed is the sweet spot. He suggested that a session like 5 x 1km at 5km pace with say 60-90" can eliminate the need for a long run. I think he's referring to 800 runners, maybe milers, but not longer.

To run an 800, you need:

- outright speed

- strength (lifting)

- speed endurance

-aerobic endurance

You need to balance the different training needed for 800 and work out what is needed at the different times of the year. For example, how much speed endurance is needed (maybe a session a week or fortnight) for an 800 runner during base? Are they better off working on outright speed development, strength (goes with speed development), and aerobic endurance, and leaving the lactic work alone?

Is the best way to work on the 800 runner's aerobic endurance doing a lot of lactic threshold work, or 5km pace work (which is maybe marginally quicker than lactic threshold speed)? Doing this with short rest intervals, tempo runs and fartlek sessions? Does this mean long runs aren't so important for 800 runners?

Again, I have no experience or insight into 12mmols, and I'm not likely to gain any, even for the low price of $200.But why isn't aerobic aerobic? Well of course aerobic is aerobic, but aerobic is kind of a broad term. But there are many kinds of aerobic:- Recovery- Endurance- Stamina- CapacityJust look above at the many words Canova uses for AEROBIC:- GENERAL RESISTANCE- AEROBIC RESISTANCE- AEROBIC POWER "1st level"- AEROBIC POWER "2nd level"- LACTIC ENDURANCE- LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCEAerobic only means that oxygen is involved. Oxygen can be used to produce energy:- from fat- from carbs- from glycogen- from lactate- possibly even from alcoholIf you think about something like the 2 hour long runs. They might be good at maximizing fat burning, and coaxing glycogen out of unused fast-twitch muscle fibers. These are important "aerobic" adaptations for the 2 hour marathon, but completely useless for a 2 minute 800m.A simple way to look at the benefit of aerobic training, is to allow you to carry your current speed for a longer distance. Then it's like what you said: "because you train your body to be aerobic in a more relevant speed". For 800m, you need the kind of aerobic support that allows you to extend your current 600m speed to 800m. If you train to extend your current 5K speed to 10K, this might coincidentally help 800m too, but indirectly.

middledistanse wrote:

But why, isn't aerobic aerobic? Or are you the mile pace workout better because you train your body to be aerobic in a more relevant speed? Or is it simply because the speed is closer to 800 speed than the 400ms would be?

And I'm still curious what he means by aerobic support, 8-12 mmol is high, is this supposed to be done troughout the year? Every week during track preperation?

Might be a lot of questions, sorry about that. But once you fine someone knowledgebal who answers your questions about these things your curious about....well. Thanks in advance.

Have rekrunner and Antonio contributed to the sub 1.50 thread?