Lydiard.....emperors clothes?

I wonder how familiar you are with Arthurs ideas.

Where do you see no evidence that he had not 'caught'on to this valuable training tool.

I only have to look at his schedules and his statements about "best Aerobic effort" to see the evidence.

I don't want to get into this Lydiard V Daniels thing as we did that in the on the other thread. I really enjoyed JD's contribution . I find his ideas every valuable and interestingly I keep his book alongside Arthur's on my Book shelf.

To get back to Arthur. You only have to look at his 'old' schedules ie 1962 and look at the 1 mile. Every week he has a 6 mile at 3/4 effort for 2 months. Do you understand that run is at a very high Aerobic effort and if you are talking a 32 minute 6 miler then the pace of that effort run is 32:40.

Hey ! Could that be a "Tempo" run in todays terms or what you are talking about.

However, Arthur 'hated' numbers and only produced those tables as a guide. (As I have stated before)

When I talked about the 5k "time trials" I did with Bill Baillie, they were never 'on the dot' of 16:30 but would be 'thereabouts" ie 16:25 to 16:45. All sorts of factors came into those runs. Least of all the conditions on the day.

One aside but related. I was at a Track Meet years ago with some of my athletes when Arthur commented to me that he felt I looked "very fit". He wanted to know what I had been doing running wise.

At that particular time I was running a lot in Cornwall park in Auckland as I lived nearby and it was a 6 minute jog from my house.

There is a 4.8 mile 'Hilly" circuit around Cornwall (too many fences these days !) that many of the old hands ran.

You were considered 'fit' if you could rotate that circuit in under 30 mins. At that time I could run it twice in 58 minutes 'comfortably". Another lap or 2 would have seen me struggling. I told Arthur that and his first comment was "No wonder you are fit, That is a tough course". Arthur just knew by looking at me running with my athletes that I and been more than just 'going through the motions'. He could tell what an athlete needed to do and when to do it.

He could work the Art of Coaching as well as the Science.

Murray Halberg's training 1960

thu - 6ml 30.55...

...sat - Waiatarua with Snell 2.20...

...mon - 2ml 9.30...

...fri - 1ml 5.00 x2 then 1ml 4.30...

...thu - 6ml 30.30...

...mon - 3ml 14.12...

...fri - 5000m Olympic Gold Medal...

Bill Baillie's training 1959

mon - 3ml on grass 4.55,4.50,4.45 = 14.30

tue - 15ml hills 1h20m

wed - 6ml on grass 5.10,5.05,5.05,5.01,4.57.4.49 = 30.07

thu - 18ml 2hr

fri - 20x400m 72s

sat - 34ml 3.44

Let me address your comment about how much I know about Lydiard. I grew up in Texas and was in high school in the early 70s. Lydiard had a lot of influence in that region, at least over the better high school coaches at the time. I saw Lydiard in person in March or April of 1970 at the Texas relays. He was introduced over the loud speaker at the meet. (Kiwi Rex Madaford won the six mile.) I read the early Kiwi biographies "Clean Pair of Heels" and "No Bugles, No Drums."

From what I recall from reading about Lydiard when I was 14, he was a top marathon runner in New Zealand in the 1950s, running in the 2:40s even though he was past 40. He was the Victorian marathon champion, as I recall.

I confess that I never read "Training the Lydiard Way," but his method of base building followed by hill training followed by interval training was pretty much accepted by everyone by the 1970s. That's the only type of training I ever knew. I've also read more articles about Lydiard and his training methods than I can possibly count.

But I don't know Lydiard as well as you, Kim, or HRE. That's why I was asking the question about the role of tempo training in Lydiard's system. He was very specific about base building, hills, intervals. I just never saw anything specific about tempo running. Hence, my question.

I agree that running six mile at 3/4 pace would be tempo running. That shows me that this type of workout was indeed a part of his toolbox. So that answers my question.

As for Daniels, he may have been the first to explain the physiological value of the tempo run. But Lydiard was having his athletes actually DO it long before that.

Anyway, Kim, I have read a lot of your posts, and was a bit surprised by your sarcastic tone. Same holds true for HRE. Not that your sarcasm was over the line at all, especially by the standards of this forum. But still, I must have posted in a manner that hit a nerve. And I apologize for that.

I've always held Lydiard in the highest esteem. And I don't have any stake in the Lydiard v Daniels debate. I just know the value of tempo running personally, so I thought I'd ask to what extent Lydiard advocated this type of workout and whether he knew about its effect in raising one's anaerobic theshold. Lydiard had a genius for discovering what worked best. Physiological studies later explained why.

One thing that hits a nerve for me all of the time is the attitude so many athletes have now which is essentially one where they are so insistent that their training be "scientific" that for them, the measure of effectiveness is how well the method is presented in articles, how thoroughly it's been lab tested, what peer reviews of the article say and so on. Somewhere, way down the line, they may ask themselves what sorts of results that approach has produced but don't seem overly persuaded or dissuaded by the answer.

The comment about Lydiard "never catching on to this important training method" seems to me to epitomize this sort of thinking. First of all, as both Kim and I mentioned, there are runs like that in the Lydiard system. When Barry comes back in 27 minutes over a course he went out on in 30, that's a run where he's pushing the tempo. But you're saying that doesn't really qualify as a tempo run for whatever reason. Ok, so what?

The idea is to race faster and if you can put together an approach which does that without using a particular training tool, then perhaps it's the value of the training tool which should be suspect rather than the successful coach who doesn't use it even if all the "scientific" literature says he should.

It seemed to me that your post was doing that and it did sort of strike that nerve of mine. If I misread or misunderstood I apologize.

Finally, Pisano wrote that he didn't think the Lydiard method was for him and he was much happier staying with JD's stuff. Then that's what he should do and Arthur absolutely would have agreed. He never, ever, tried to persuade someone to train his way if that someone would rather do something else, no matter how well or poorly Arthur regarded that other approach.

As for the science, I think it's always a good idea to understand the physiological basis for your training. By understanding why long runs at an easy pace are more effective at developing mitochondria and the capillary network than long runs at a hard pace, someone is more likely to do the easy runs. The same holds true for tempo running.

As for your example about Barry McGee going out in 30 mins and coming back in 27 mins, either the 30 is too hard to be a warm up or the 27 is too easy to be a tempo run. More likely, they wouldn't amount to either a warm up or a tempo run.

Going out for five miles in 30 mins would be a six-minute pace. Coming back in 27 mins would be 5:24 pace. If Barry McGee did that kind of run when he had the ability to run a six-mile race in 28 minutes (4:40 pace), he would be running slower than his tempo pace, which should be 4:50-4:55. In the example I gave, Barry would be doing a progressively faster, fairly hard 10-mile run.

There's nothing wrong with doing a 10 mile run with the second half being faster than the first half. The question is whether it pushes your body to its anaerobic threshold and keeps it there just long enough to get the desired training effect.

I am not a scientist, but I don't accept the idea that there is a soul-destroying aspect to it. I guess there can be for some people, though. And there's no question that the science can be taken to absurd levels.

The real issue here is whether Daniels's notion that running for 25-35 mins at 10-15 secs slower than current 10k race pace (or AT 10-mile race pace) is most effective for improving one's ability to run at a given pace without producing lactic acid. If his explanation is valid, then I know why tempo runs are so effective for me. And I can see the value in having that knowledge.

It certainly increases my already-high admiration for Lydiard to know that this type of training (whatever you label it) was a staple for his athletes way back when.

Mr. Past,

Daniels, up through the first edition of DRF, narrowly defined a tempo (T) run as being done at the pace at which one could race for 1hr. He recommended a training run of 20 minutes at T pace.

Malmo has often referred to tempo runs as being properly done at roughly marathon pace. He recommends typical tempo segments of 2-8 miles, I believe (with occasional longer ones being ok).

Lydiard obviously had on his schedules runs that were roughly equivalent to Malmo's version of "tempo."

In Daniels' 2nd edition of DRF, he has a more flexible range of tempo paces. I think this reflects his awareness of discussions over the last three years on LetsRun, including contributions by Malmo, Hadd, and others.

One thing that has always bugged me with this number-oriented training (be it "tempo" runs or reps) is the fact that everybody seems to be talking on the assumption that we all run the same time for 5k or half marathon or whatever year-round. I know I can't (or couldn't). That's where all the hill training and more race specific training come in later in the program. If we can run the same "speed" throughout the year, there's no need to divide the program into segments. Why even bother with hill training? I cut my 3-mile time trial time by almost 2 minutes just by doing these time trials in 3 weeks! So how can anybody say Barry's 27-minute 5 miler during his conditioning phase 3/4 effort is not fast enough when compared with his PR 5k or 10k AT HIS PEAK?

Besides--HRE, you took the words straight out of my mouth--I'd rather do some ridiculous workouts and win championships than follow some perfectly orchestrated training plan with correct "scientific value" (whatever it means). We are training to race--and perform well in the races; not to perform workouts correctly and perfectly. At least that's my take.

Bug, thanks for your post. Obviously, I'd be interested in learning more about Daniels's thinking on tempo running. (By the way, I've read parts of that long thread about Lydiard v Daniels.)

I never claimed to be a numbers guy regarding training. I feel like I'm serving as a strawman for some of the guys who want to criticize that type of thinking. I just know from experience that tempo running is a vital part of my training. I wish I'd done more of it in high school. And perhaps I would have if Lydiard had put more emphasis on it. A lot of coaching comes down to communication.

I'm grateful to Daniels for explaining why running at one's anaerobic threshold level for roughly 30 mins is so effective at raising the point at which one produces lactic acid.

Living in the past:

I didn't mean to label you as the number guy. I'm sorry it came out that way; I was merely responding to the last post (of course, Bug put his while I was writing mine...).

I would be the first one to admit that Lydiard was not clear with lots of things--I had to fly across the ocean to figure out things. And a lot of what he did came upon by accident. Running all those hills is one of them.

But I seriously think one of his biggest contributions is that he told us to "go by how we feel". Vague, yes. But it is vital. All those fast runs "Arthur's Boys" did, a lot of them really came to them naturally. They weren't really trying to hit any set times or anything (except for him yelling at Jeff Julian that "If you're running Waitak slower than 2:20, you're wasting your bloody time!"). Really, first go slow just to survive; disregard any "time". That is a real "Chapter One" that I learnt. As you get fitter, the time WILL come down.

I learned about Lydiard's "train according to how you feel" mentality in the early 1970s. Even at the age of 15, I knew that there would be days when I just didn't feel like running hard and couldn't even run hard if I wanted to, so I ran easy. It was thanks to Lydiard that I realized that every day shouldn't be an all-out effort. I also appreciated the notion that even most of your hard days should leave you feeling like you could have done a little more.

I enjoy knowing a little about the physiology behind the training. I saw an interesting thread on here a few weeks ago that cited Hadd's theory that after 1 hour 40 mins of running (or he may have said two hours), you actually begin to recruit fast-twitch muscle fibers and you aren't training them to run slowly. Fast twitch is fast twitch. That's an interesting theory. Lydiard was a big advocate of running for two hours, so his athletes benefited from recruiting their fast twitch muscle fibers on these long runs. Knowing what the full training effect is makes you more likely to do them.

Mr. Past, good luck with your exploration on the tempo topic. If you haven't already, read the 2003 Hadd thread. He argued that to stimulate a rise in LT, it's best to work through a range of intensities BELOW it.

As for the labeling of you as a numbers guy. Of course folks have a point - a runner must learn to feel the appropriate intensity and judge the appropriate volume. But precise explanations such as Daniels' are (as you already know) no real barrier to the use of intuition in day-to-day practice. They aid it.

I couldn't agree more, Bug. It was decades ago that I learned to run according to effort and not constantly monitor my pace by referring to a watch. A HRM is useless to me, because I can tell what my heart rate is based on how I feel. That's true of most long-term runners.

Your last two sentences sum up exactly my thinking. Understanding a little about the physiology actually helps you develop a feel for what works. Some of the other guys on this thread really surprised by trying to pitch science and intuition against each other.

bug wrote:

In Daniels' 2nd edition of DRF, he has a more flexible range of tempo paces. I think this reflects his awareness of discussions over the last three years on LetsRun, including contributions by Malmo, Hadd, and others.

You cannot be serious!

I have to admit I too (like HRE)felt a nerve being hit and apologise for my sarcastic tone in my last post.

One of the problems with what Arthur has published is the interepretation. I would be the first to line up with that one and I have seen many athletes and Coaches here 'stuff it up' as well. It was not until I spent time around Bill Bailie ans Arthur himself that I feel I began to understand somewhat. I don't consider myself anywhere as knowledgeable as Nobby, HRE or Glenn.

I have given my athletes workouts that don't appear in his books and many times he has been supportive and keen to know how the athlete has gone with their racing.

Back to the "Effort/Time trial discussion". I am teaching my young athletes how to do their "Effort" runs or "Time trial" and just Saturday I had one out with me. I no longer run 'the quicker stuff' but still run with my athletes.

Anyway I scheduled a 3k Timetrial. We ran for 20 minutes before we even got to the area we run (some flat hard packed trails). My runner then ran his 3k (9:45) with me 'ducking and diving' around short cuts to check he was going along OK and then after jogging a little and discussing how it went we then ran for another 20 minutes. That is quite a sort(ish) workout for us but it is one I have done before with younger athletes and it makes it easier to progress them out to longer distances as they develop.

Today (Wednesday)I am heading over to our Secondary Schools Provincial Champs and will see a Coach who is pretty clued up on Arthurs ideas. If I get the chance I will bounce some of this discussion off him.

Keep this discussion going

I've got nothing against science. I'm actually fond of it. My dad was a science teacher. Science paid the rent when I was a kid and I was always nosing through his textbooks.

While I agree that knowing a bit about the science behind training is a good idea, I think it's a big mistake to assume that running is science or vice versa.

To go with the example of Barry's 57 minute 10 mile runs, you're essentially saying that they were somewhat improper training because one bit was too slow and another was too fast and your evidence for this is some formula that says he should have been running at some other speeds. My answer is that we're talking about a guy who won an Olympic medal, a Fukuoka championship and was once the top rated 6 miler/10,000 meter runner in the world. Whatever training he was doing was far from improper. Again, I think that you want to look at the resuts of training to evealuate it's effectiveness properly.

As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with Barry McGee doing a 10-mile run in 57 minutes. You were offering it up as an example of a tempo run.

But it is actually in between a tempo run and a high-steady state long run, with the second half being faster than the first half. I never ran as fast as Barry, but I do know that it's a very effective workout. I'm sure, contributed greatly to his success.

And I'm sure that his six mile runs at 3/4 effort were also vital to his success. (This was what Daniels would call a tempo run.) Surely you aren't saying that the 10 mile run in 57 minutes had the same effect as the six-mile run at 3/4 effort? Maybe you are saying that.

But it's also possible that they were both necessary building blocks in Barry's training. The 10-mile run would likely have raised his VO2 max more than the six-mile run at 3/4 effort. The six-miler would likely have done more to raise his ability to run at a given pace without producing lactic acid.

R U Kidding? wrote:

bug wrote:

In Daniels' 2nd edition of DRF, he has a more flexible range of tempo paces. I think this reflects his awareness of discussions over the last three years on LetsRun, including contributions by Malmo, Hadd, and others.

You cannot be serious!

Two examples. On 5/16/2003, after "inquiring red dragon" asked him to comment on the Hadd thread, Daniels wrote: "At your suggestion I read through the stuff you referred me to. Lots of good information and advice. The more you delve into this stuff the more you realize there is to learn. Always remember that not all people are designed the same (thank goodness). And the level of inherent ability, as well as the commitment to train, both vary tremendously. Of course this is the reason that various approaches work better for different people. Hadd's information does a nice job of explaining some basic principles of training and that is what I like to preach as well."...

And on 6/13/2003 Daniels wrote: "I think the idea of going just below T for longer period may have some real merit -- needs being studied, and would be reasonable to do with a group of enthusiasts."

The latter quote suggested that Daniels might like to test the idea.

Can't stop myself...must respond...help...

Living in the Past:

That particular example of Magee's training is just one of many. Arthur's boys would do numerous time trials in the latter stages of a training cycle. The earlier ones might be at "3/4" effort and the latter ones at "7/8" effort. They would do lots of them in the 5k to 10k range and marathoners did longer ones too. For sharpening, they did time some 1 mile or half-mile time trials too. I think the 7/8 effort for a 5k or 10k running is quite close to Daniel's Tempo pace. They would run them evenly, with no kick at the end. I discussed this with several of his boys (Magee, Baillie, Robinson, Puckett, Julian), so I know it is correct.

Don't get me wrong - I am a big fan of Daniels too. (I have both editions of DRF, plus all of Arthur's books). He came from a more scientific background and naturally tried to quantify things a bit more. I see many similarities in the training blocks.