HRE wrote:
Once again, he did coach girls as soon as there were girls to coach.
When did girls begin to exist?
HRE wrote:
Once again, he did coach girls as soon as there were girls to coach.
When did girls begin to exist?
Serious question ` wrote:
HRE wrote:
Once again, he did coach girls as soon as there were girls to coach.
When did girls begin to exist?
I'm not sure of the history of women's running but for a very long time they were not allowed to do the longer races. I'd guess late 70s early 80s was when they were allowed to race. Even then there was a big fear their uterus would fall out. Somethings just can't be made up.
Mahavishnu1500 wrote:
What Lydiard got right was the physiology of distance running and the importance of the aerobic capacity, and general theories.
He was a brilliant coach, but his attempts to explain physiology are misguided in their best moments and often embarrassingly wrong.
Serious question ` wrote:
HRE wrote:
Once again, he did coach girls as soon as there were girls to coach.
When did girls begin to exist?
Why would anyone think this is really a serious question?
HRE wrote:
Serious question ` wrote:
When did girls begin to exist?
Why would anyone think this is really a serious question?
HRE, could you give a bigger & longer explanation of your time with Lydiard & his training? I bet you a lot of the newbies here don't realize your personal connection with Lydiard. It's such a valuable asset to this forum.
(I know I've told you before, but I do think you need to really sit-down & write a book about your time with Lydiard.)
Son of HRE wrote:
HRE wrote:
Why would anyone think this is really a serious question?
HRE, could you give a bigger & longer explanation of your time with Lydiard & his training? I bet you a lot of the newbies here don't realize your personal connection with Lydiard. It's such a valuable asset to this forum.
(I know I've told you before, but I do think you need to really sit-down & write a book about your time with Lydiard.)
I'd buy a few copies.
Grammer natzy wrote:
Yarly wrote:
No he should have went so far as to get a gymnastics coach to help out with footing mobility and balance and do Sprint training.
Should of went.
Also: "help out with footing mobility, and balance, and do Sprint training'
Peter Coe has a good book that goes into some of Seb's 800m training with circuits for strength, and plyos, and hills. I liked Lydriard's hill bounding phase ideas. The 800m is a great and pure race. It combines speed and strength/endurance. There are many athletes who can run a quick 100, 200 or 400 off little training - all inherent ability and athleticism. The 800 though requires some specific and hard training even though a top 800m runner will float through 600m and feel relatively no pain/struggle. The training is for maintaining speed around the last curve and for the final straight where the race is won.
If I could do it over I would still run X but just not put in as many miles. Starting in January my long runs would be no more than 7 miles but they would be quicker at 6:15 to 6:30 per mile rather than my Lydiard coach's 10 to 12 milers at 8 mins per mile. March and April long runs would be 5 miles at 6 mins a mile.
longjack wrote:
over time, the muscles over-adapt to slow pace, and the finishing kick gradually goes into meritocracy.
Do you mean aristocracy?
2019_runner wrote:
Are there any resources that nicely summarize consensus optimal training techniques and detail what each element of the training is targeting physiologically? There’s been some discussion of this in this thread but would be great if anyone had any sources of this info
Bump
HRE wrote:
One blind spot that I think Arthur had was the prevalence of PEDs. He never believed that the East German successes were due to doping. He believed that the Chinese women who briefly were destroying world distance records were clean. I think the blind spot was because he always believed the best of people until there was a reason not to. He certainly would not have approved of it. I was glad in a way that he was dead when Liza Hunter Galvin, the last Olympian he coached, was caught.
The other thing I had a hard time believing he was right about was his idea that running in hot weather was not really difficult as long AS LONG AS IT WAS ALSO HUMID. I remember asking him about that, he's the only person I ever knew who said such a thing. But he said that was what he'd experienced so I guess you can't really say he was wrong.
HRE, I have to say that my experience in running in hot weather with high humidity was just as hard or maybe harder for me than when I was running at high altitude. I know everyone is different, but both training situations will improve your performances when racing in cool dry weather at sea level. For me I prefer the altitude to hot humid weather, I currently live at altitude and the humidity is generally very low here.
broken arrow wrote:
HRE wrote:
One blind spot that I think Arthur had was the prevalence of PEDs. He never believed that the East German successes were due to doping. He believed that the Chinese women who briefly were destroying world distance records were clean. I think the blind spot was because he always believed the best of people until there was a reason not to. He certainly would not have approved of it. I was glad in a way that he was dead when Liza Hunter Galvin, the last Olympian he coached, was caught.
The other thing I had a hard time believing he was right about was his idea that running in hot weather was not really difficult as long AS LONG AS IT WAS ALSO HUMID. I remember asking him about that, he's the only person I ever knew who said such a thing. But he said that was what he'd experienced so I guess you can't really say he was wrong.
HRE, I have to say that my experience in running in hot weather with high humidity was just as hard or maybe harder for me than when I was running at high altitude. I know everyone is different, but both training situations will improve your performances when racing in cool dry weather at sea level. For me I prefer the altitude to hot humid weather, I currently live at altitude and the humidity is generally very low here.
I know there had been a thread here a while ago asking if running in hot and humid weather was "poor man's altitude training," presumably meaning that you didn't need to uproot your life and find a way to get by in Flagstaff or some such place. I asked Peter Snell that very question many moons ago and he said that the physiology of the two things is very different.
But I also know that in 1968 Jack Bacheler came out of almost nowhere to make the Olympic Team at 5,000 meters at the Tahoe Trials and then was the only American to qualify for the finals in Mexico City (though he was very sick that day and didn't run.) All of his training had been done in Gainesville. He said that he thought the reason he was able to run well at
altitude was because he'd had to deal with so much heat and humidity in Gainesville that it had been like training at altitude.
To you guys mentioning a book, I'm flattered and I'll give it some thought. But I really don't know that I'd have enough material for a whole book and MOST of what would be in it in terms of training is already available in probably hundreds of places.
Agree with you about the 800m wrote:
Long slow miles don't help the 800m specialist.
I can never understand strong opinions from an ignorant viewpoint displayed here. If you have read his books which you have not you would learn that his runners were not running long slow miles. The term LSD label ticked him off! As well it should have. But I guess people did not read back then either.
I will always believe that lessons from trans-continental runs are unknown or poorly understood. People adapt well to vast distances they are seemingly unprepared for.
In nature there’s no finish line, only survival. Our territoriality & weapons mean that new or lightly-peopled lands, even if harsh or distant, always hold an appeal.
You may ultimately win (or at least survive) any confrontation by running away.
HRE wrote:
To you guys mentioning a book, I'm flattered and I'll give it some thought. But I really don't know that I'd have enough material for a whole book and MOST of what would be in it in terms of training is already available in probably hundreds of places.
HRE, I think you simply need to figure out how you would want to write the book. What construct or how you would put the book together.
On one hand, you have a Livingston style book in you AND you have your personal time with Arthur (and a wide, wide array of other personas of the running world as well).
As even this thread shows, there is a lot of misinformation about Lydiard. You have first-hand knowledge of exactly what Arthur was trying to do...and can clear-up any confusion on the man & his training methods.
You are such a modest person, you will drop an anecdotal story here & will blow us away from your experiences.
With no offense & lots of respect, you're no spring chicken anymore & really, in a lot of ways, one of the last people who could say they knew Lydiard & worked with Lydiard too. (Sure, there's Nobby & a few others, but don't sell yourself short.)
HRE wrote:
Serious question ` wrote:
When did girls begin to exist?
Why would anyone think this is really a serious question?
Girls did not exist in New Zealand until Lydiard starting coaching them.
There was an element of long slow distance. To build an aerobic base the runners would run long and slow before they were able to run long and faster/steady state. 800m runners didn't need to run 20+ miles. A person may not call what they do LSD but to an 800m runner being asked to run 20+ miles it sure seems like LSD is a good term for it.
Lydiard was wrong wrote:
Lydiard was wrong about everything. He was just the first training geek to systematize a passionate, albeit nonsensical training theory for which there is still no rational proof. I use the “rational” qualifier because people will inevitably resort to the insanity of invoking the popularity of his ideas and their use by elite athletes as proof of their validity. My only response to which is to say that some people think rationally and some don’t, and it’s clear which category most runners fall into. Lydiard’s ideas are popular because running culture is irrational and mystical, not logical and scientific.
And the earth is still flat. It must be true because most people think it isn't - and they aren't "rational" and "scientific" like you.
Lydiard was wrong wrote:
Lydiard was wrong about everything. He was just the first training geek to systematize a passionate, albeit nonsensical training theory for which there is still no rational proof. I use the “rational” qualifier because people will inevitably resort to the insanity of invoking the popularity of his ideas and their use by elite athletes as proof of their validity. My only response to which is to say that some people think rationally and some don’t, and it’s clear which category most runners fall into. Lydiard’s ideas are popular because running culture is irrational and mystical, not logical and scientific.
Are you that idiot clown coach from Portugal who used to post profusely on these boards?
I don't think it's Antonio Cabral. It's probably Bad Wiggins. That's the sort of stupid sh!it he would say.