LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

I remember when this thread started about 3 months ago. I was immediately turned off by the "Leigh Daniels" and "For Shizzle" comments. As the thread kept growing I figured I should check it out. I've been extremely surprised. As others have said, this is easily the best thread around. I want to personally thank everyone for contributing.

I'm still about 8 pages behind the present discussion, but trying to catch up. So forgive me if these two topics have already been brought up.

1) Did Lydiard believe in taking any time off during the year? Would his runners take time off between seasons?

2) For someone who's just finished their season, taken 2 weeks off and looking to follow Lydiard's program, what would be your advice as far as planning a racing season? Would a marathon 7.5 months away be okay? Should I just start putting in the conditioning and see where it takes me?

Thanks for this post, Tinman, especially the two paragraphs that I'm quoting here.

My next question is if you or some of the others (Glenn, Nobby, HRE, Kim, etc.) can go into more detail on:

Exactly how to determine using the time trials what area needs to be worked on, i.e. stamina, speed, strength. I'm thinking in layman's terms, how would you determine exactly whether you need some more long aerobic runs or maybe hit the hills a few more times or more of the 50 sprint/50 float "killer drillers." How do you analyze the time trial to determine what needs to be done next?

I'm hoping this will clear up my confusion on time trials the way that you guys helped me understand the hills back in the first 5 pages of this thread.

Thanks for any input.

Nobby would write: "Did I really say that?" Seriously, skuj, reproducing the same post from your thread might confuse the readers??? Maybe a good time to promote your thread, what did you call it, Pacath?

I would add one thing that is, I wouldn't say you "can't" do everything at once. You can, as Kim Stevenson has been sharing Lydiard's Race-Week/Non-Race-Week schedules in the past. Of course, Lydiard would say that it's not the optimum way to train... In a way, it is probably not the most efficient way to train ("Put it this way..."-AL).

When I first met him, I asked him what he thinks made him, or Dixon, Walker and all other Kiwis in general, so tough. Maybe hilly terrain, maybe diet... He said, "Well, we were a bunch of prisoners shipped from Europe. I'm sure many died along the way. It was survival of the fittest!" So whomever survived were a bunch of tough guys! (another one of those Qauxism you'd enjoy, jtupper!)

This proves that Quax has spent his life thinking he's living in Australia.

Zeke,

Arthur preferred that you stay a bit active when you were resting. He liked it if you managed short easy runs during those rest weeks. But again, if he had someone who really seemed to need some time off he'd want them to take it.

The ususal Lydiard cycle for getting ready for The Big Even was six months. A race that's seven and half months away allows you to do the whole schedule. When assigning the base phase, Arthur used to preface it by saying "for as long as possible." I'd spend the extra time on basework for the most part. I'd make sure that I didn't overextend the anaerobic work.

drunkenhyena,

You sort of have to analyze the time trials and preliminary races to get the sort of answers you're looking for. If you find the paces a bit fast but when you finish feel like you could probably do the whole thing again almost as fast, you may need to work on speed more, i.e., the short fast stuff. I'd say the same would be true if you feel awkward at faster paces. If you find that you're dying at the end, assuming your early pace was reasonable, you'd want to work more on aerobic conditioning. Because the hills are supposed to help make the transition from basework to faster work, I'd think that you'd go back and do more hills if you were finding the faster aerobic work was producing these little niggling sorts of injuries.

Nobby wrote:

Nobby would write: "Did I really say that?" Seriously, skuj, reproducing the same post from your thread might confuse the readers??? Maybe a good time to promote your thread, what did you call it, Pacath?

I would add one thing that is, I wouldn't say you "can't" do everything at once. You can, as Kim Stevenson has been sharing Lydiard's Race-Week/Non-Race-Week schedules in the past. Of course, Lydiard would say that it's not the optimum way to train... In a way, it is probably not the most efficient way to train ("Put it this way..."-AL).

Hey Nobby. My 11:36 post above was reproduced from pacath. Sorry for any confusion. Sometimes I find it worthwhile to post on both.

Oh I see....what I reproduced quotes you from the other thread. That IS confusing! Ooooops. Apologies Nobby.

Don't forget that most runners in NZ were good 'average Joe' athletes and Arthur advised many in his time. The race week/non race week schedule suited that sort of person (in the main).

In the 50s/60s/70s/80s and to a certain extent the 90s' harrier/athletic clubs boomed and numbers were up. This is how many athletes trained.

It is not the optimum way to train but these people held down jobs and had families just like everyone else.

Put your Baillies/ Magees / Halbergs into that category too. They had to work to eat as well.

Converse to that I saw many who just "ran" 100 miles a week.

Good one Rich, Knowing Dick that would be a typical "Quaxism". But there would be a grain of truth in it.

The people who came to NZ(and those who lived here, the Maori) were a tough people who had to survive and eek out a living in very rough hill country that was covered in thick Jungle like Bush.

100 years ago the place was somewhere that only the tough survived. You learned to work in all sorts of conditions.

The work ethic for sport came from those people.

I can vividly remember my first workout at College in the US in really bad weather. I just put on my running gear, a thin nylon jacket and started to head out to run. The rest of the team were horrified. "We train Indoors on days like this !" was the word.

"No way !" was my answer. "Kiwi's train in whatever is going !"

That was the last time those guys trained Indoors !!

Good one, Kim. I can remember some of the first runs I had with Ray Puckett in NZ. I particularly remember this one run, going up this steep hill through a bush track in pouring rain...stream of water running through rocks, I'm thinking, "what the...!" Running through creek, mud, climbing up some mean hills... You'll learn to enjoy it for sure though! Wasn't there a story of Snell, Baillie, Halberg running in pouring rain in Melbourne or something and they came across this bus stop where an old lady was waiting for a bus. "Excuse me," one of them said to the lady, "is this the right direction to Sydney?" They laughed and laughed and went on with their run. What a bunch of happy nutty runners...!

mikeinboston wrote:

So Tinman,

After reading all that about Quax and Moorcroft, I'm curious...while in base phase do you recommend a combination of longer tempo/stronger aerobic efforts (however you call them) and then these sort of "fake" interval sessions that are actually LT work?

In other words, since both tempo runs and the sessions you described are just LT work, what are some advantages of doing one over the other?

You always write so much, I feel almost guilty getting this info for free! So if you have time...thanks.

mike

-----------------------------------------------

Tempo runs as I use them are not specifically designed for lacctate threshold enhancement, but rather for aerobic threshold enhanccement which is lower in intensity. My tempos are like Lydiards, in many ways, in that they are focused on developing stamina. My tempos are at no faster than marathon pace to about 20 seconds per mile slower (a range of acceptable paces). In the future on will steele's website you can find all my paces formatted.

Nobby, HRE, jtupper, Glenn, Kim, Skuj, et al,

First, thank you for the fantastic contributions in this thread. I don’t have time to read it everyday, but I catch up once or twice a week and learn a great deal.

Second, when I decided I wanted to start “running” a couple of years ago at age 47, I bought Daniel’s Running Formula. Read it cover to cover many times (usually at bedtime, with my wife saying “are you still reading that?”). The valuable things I received: it is okay to run easy, know why you are running on a particular session, and appreciate your personal limits. The science parts are great, and the schedules are complete, but the three things above are what I needed to hear. After following the schedules and having some success, I felt like I need to learn “how to run”—I was too concerned about paces, etc.

Third, I read about Lydiard on letsrun, and I checked Running with Lydiard out of the library and read it cover to cover many times (same wife input). The valuable things I received: build upon your "steady state", be patient, and the entire concept of coordination. I started running 90 minutes a day alternating with running 60 minutes a day until I could feel a “steady state” – I wasn’t sure what it was when I started, but after a few weeks I felt it. I learned something about running. I’ve continued through the hill phase (very hard, could only do two sessions a week), and just finished the anaerobic phase. I hate the track, so I ran 4-5 x 5 minutes hard/4 minutes easy on grass field for my intervals (Daniels suggesting that 5 min is a good max length for workbouts). Now I am in the coordination phase, and I ran a PB for 10k by 1:41 on Sunday for first place in my age group. I am planning to run a marathon in December. I will never be a great runner, but that never really matters as long as I enjoy running.

My conclusion is I need the input of both Daniels and Lydiard to learn about myself running. I think both have been generous to contribute to the running world. I still read both on a regular basis (annoying my wife). For people looking for absolute answers: Ambiguity is part of great art.

Derej,

great line "Ambiguity is part of great art.". To me the great coaches are masters of the art. Anyone can learn and apply science. Unfortunately our bodies don't always respond as well to science as they do art.

Glenn

Derej:

To be able to share your experience like you did and make others feel good, and 1:41 improvement, you are already a great runner.

And to go back to the original question: Lydiard and Daniels, you nailed it. "...it is okay to run easy, know why you are running on a particular session, and appreciate your personal limits." This echos from Lydiard as well...exactly. So afterall, they are not that far apart.

And here's my story with my wife: I was watching 1976 Montreal Olympic 5000m (one of my favorites) the other day. My wife asked me what I was watching. I told her. She said, "Have you seen it before?" I said yes. Then she gave it to me. "Is someone else going to win this time?" They just don't understand the joy of "repetition", do they?

Skuj:

Regarding Martin vs. Lydiard - I know Dr. Dave (a fellow Atlantan) and a few months ago interviewed him and had lunch with him. We talked a lot about Lydiard (who he knew). I can't speak about Peter Coe, but David Martin believes the Lydiard system is quite valid and acknowledges that Arthur was very ahead of his time. He sees many similarities to his own approach. Dr. Martin, like Dr. Daniels, thinks like a scientist, and is always considering and reconsidering his views on training and racing, based on available evidence, whereas Arthur seemed to be a bit more certain about things.

Regarding Dick Quax - I interview him last month in NZ. What a warm, charming guy! I don't know why he would be talking about his Kiwi heritage, because he was born a Dutchman in Alkmaar, Holland! He was known, after all, as the "Flying Dutchman."

BTW: This thread just keeps getting better! We've even made peace with one of the bad boys. Tinman and Glenn have certainly hit it off - great minds thinking alike, etc. This is what a message board should be! I'm not kidding!

jsquire:

I've been a little swamped lately, but you had asked about my training (4 pages ago!), which I'm happy to share. I'm hesitant to bore the masses on this thread, but shoot me an email and I'll fill you in on one 41-year-old man's attempt at marathon fitness.

-Mark

Mark, don't be so modest! From what I know about your times (regardless of age), I think several people (myself included) would like to hear about your training. Do tell.

Yeah, Hotlanta is alright!

Dr. Martin is very keen on joining the Lydiard Foundation as an advisory staff. It would be a great asset to have him on board.

Yeah. Don'be shy. After that run at the Legends race I don't think anyone would be bored if you wanted to go public.