Lydiard anaerobic phase

I have been away from this argument for various reasons. (Non Running).

One being a new computer and a new email address (to be done today !!).

I cannot comprehend why some of us are considered a cult. The guy who would laugh about that the most would probably be Arthur.

Firstly : I too can be contacted either here or on my hot mail :

rotokim@hotmail.com

Secondly ; Yes ! I can understand why the precisness in all this is frustrating and people want specfic workouts.

As I have said before. Arthur never wanted to publish his schedules but did so at the urging of publishers. they were intended as Guides.

I have seen schedules he wrote out for some athletes that are quite different to what were written in his books. Those schedules were written for that person.

IQ100 : you are right in one thing ; We are not Arthur so cannot do that. As we say here in NZ : Arthur had the "touch". He could see what an athlete required just by watching them run.

All we are doing is trying to help people intrepret what he was proposing and also explaining (to the best of my/our ability) anything that seems to be confusing.

BTW: I have never run 100 miles a week and Arthur knew that. At no stage did he ever 'criticise' me for that.

He considered 100mpw an optimum amount of work to be done Aerobically. He did not write that into stone an say that is what you must do. It was/is a guideline.

Keep it cool !

wellnow wrote:

Hi Nobby. Well you know my complaint, that Lydiard's definition of Anaerobic is wrong, and this issue needs to be addressed in order to avoid confusion and also to avoid the problem of talking bullshit.

I am not talking about the training itself, but about the way the training is discussed.

wellnow

It seems you start a crusade against the definition of aerobic and aerobic training. I guess that you are right aout modern physiology but that´s not necessary to change.

You see when Colombo the navigator did arrive at the American Continent he taugh that he did arrive to India. That´s why he named the native people of the America the Indians. Since long ago that we all know that the american natives aren´t indians. But all around the world we still name them indians and they are only known by indians, despite they aren´t natives from India.

The anaerobic training that´s something that is well defined among coaches and other the rest andit meaning is something accepted all over the world despite that can be wrong if we consider the physiology. We all know what´s an anaerobic workout in the running scene and in the running community. No need to go deeper in that. We just need to know wha we are talking about. Every running term my be defined by a multitude of names from the percent of the pace define up to the level of effort. Several generations did define that and actually that´s something that it doesn´t need to change despite that the origine of the name that´s not the best. Besides if we change the concept of anaerobic workout we need to change max.VO2 workout or lactate, or endurance and so an so. There are several definitions for each one of the training zones. But no one is perfect or complete. Since every effort includes a multitude of physiologic characteristics and no name includes that all no name is perfect.

IQ100 wrote:

wellnow

It seems you start a crusade against the definition of aerobic and aerobic training.

It seems you start a crusade against the definition of aerobic and ANAEROBIC training.

First off there is no cult, the only one who thinks 'cult' is Skuj and a friend he recruited who unfortunatley cannot communicate very well in English.

End of story, no more whining about cult.

Also, Lydiard may have had a slightly incorrect definition to what some terms were and perhaps was a little vague at times. So what? Get over it.

Until Skuj, IQ100 and anyone else manages to coach one Olympic athlete to a medal, never mind MANY and NATIONS and for GENERATIONS, just bloody ask questions and learn, otherwise go away, forever.

End of story, no more whining.

Coe, Daniels, Kellog, Martin, Bowerman, Ryun, Dellinger, Lydiard etc etc etc etc....all would think this debate as one of the most infantile, petty and stupid conversation to go on in the history of running forums.

End of story, stop the whining.

Kim, HRE, Nobby etc have made sensible resonses here, learn from it. When you stop learning or worse, think you are holier than though, it's over for you.

Cut the crap. I'm outta here and not a moment too soon.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

IQ100 : you are right in one thing ; We are not Arthur so cannot do that. As we say here in NZ : Arthur had the "touch". He could see what an athlete required just by watching them run.

Dear Stevenson. If someone like you that were coached directly by Arthur you say that i´m right in one point i did one score. At least in one point i´m right. I hope to be right in more points in the future. I take your own idea the one that Lydiard he would laugh about the idea that´s some of us consider the Lydiardism a cult to try to make yu comprehend. I don´t want you agreement. I simply want your understanding. In my opinion the Lydiardism not just makes of Lydiard method a cult as well as demagogic, innacurate, expansionist, and all inclusive.

First they imagine that they are the owners of Lydiard training. Instead the Lydiard method is public knowledge. They can have a attorney to speak for Lydiard, build Foundations, write books, do Seminaries, open sites express their opinion about all that concerns Lydiard.

But in one point they can´t. In all aspects that concerns the Lydiard method IN WHAT IS MADE LYDIARD TRAINING PUBLIC INFORMATION, by the news, by the books, by all types of writing, by the articles, by the results etc, NO LYDIARDIST NO POWER, NO AUTHORITY can try to shout our mouthsor try to enable us to speak, to write, or to express for any mean write or wrong critics by thoe who have a different opinion about the Lydiard method. What I read from the acts of the Lyardists here in LRC or in any other place that´s a kind of Inquisition (i hope you know what´s the Inquisition meant) against those wo come in disagreement about the same issues of the Lydiard cult, or weha i consider a cult. The mood of some responsables for the Lydiard spread is innapropriate. They have to be right, they all know more than us of Lydiard and they act like censors.

They think that by being many ones and reapeat that´s they way they show their supremacy. They tend to make us believe that Lidiardists they havethe majority of the training methods or the best runners when staistically that´s not true.

Mr. Nobby felt in trouble about the lack of convinct and concrete arguments when he discussed the Lydiard method with John Molvar. What Nobby did ? He finish the discussion saing that "WE" will interpret Lydiard method for that no doubts will last. This is what´s the lydiardism cult or Lydiardism myth or Lydiardism arrogance. As the father that says to the son. You have no age and no authority to discuss the Lydiard method. I´m the owner of the Arc. Almost everything that exits in the running methods was signed by Lydiard or Lydiard influence. Often i think that some post contributors they think that Lydiard did invent running and the training and that eaelier and before Lydiard nothing exists or no interest really.

Yes wetcoast, what an offensive little Lydiard "troll" you are. Not a moment too soon for you to leave as you haven't contributed anything anyway.

IQ (who is likely Cabral), regardless of what Skuj thinks, is at least still trying to coach - lydiard is dead! While Lydiard's contributions are enormous, he (and his theories) were by no means perfect, and in fact, while he himself was an excellent coach, too many of his disciples have adopted his "mantra" without really understanding (seemingly) the personal approach his programs required. It doesn't matter who he coached really 40 years ago - if we take that apporach why don't we follow the programs of the flying Finns from the 1920's as surely they produced more Olympic Champions than did he.

No one argues that he was a poor coach, for surely he was great, but it was his coaching, less than his method that made him great. There is, from a scientific perspective, much that is unclear in his anaerobic phases - although his application for the athlete's he coached was perhaps coincidentally successful - that the sport has moved (or should have) beyond what he preached is the difficulty. Too many worshipping at his alter, not unlike Daniels recently it seems (or Coe/Martin for that matter - eh Skuj?) as opposed to utilizing his contributions (as with many other coaches as well) and creating better athletes. Not just blindly following "recipes" as if that is the answer. Each athlete is an individual who needs to be treated as such if they are ever to truly to reach their potential - that is the task of coaching, not an easy one at that.

IQ100 : I was never Coached by Arthur. I went to him for help when I decided I would like to Coach. When I was running I learned a lot from Bill Baillie who was Coached by Arthur. But I was also lucky in that I also mixed with a lot of the original Arthur's Boys and what i gained from them was immeasurable.

I have no problem discussing Arthur's ideas but when ideas that he put forward are 'rubbished' then I feel there is an attack being made.

BTW : Please check who won Gold and Silver in the 2004 Oly Mens Triathlon and who Coached them and who influenced their Coaching. What was neat arthur was there when the guys did that. 3 months later he was dead.

There is no one-way. Accept that as the truth. When you do, then you can see that what Arthur Lydiard uncovered was "a way" that develops consistent results. It is plan-able, such that you can predict your peaks. Runners can be at their best when it counts, be that school, league, state, region, national or world title competitions. It is predictable. That is the power of the Lydiard approach to training runners for middle and long distance racing. Sure every once in a great while some extremely talented runner wins an Olympic title DESPITE his/her training. But for the most part, the winners are trained to peak at the right time. It has been well documented that Peter Snell had the slowest 200 PB or anyone in the 800 final in '60 or '64, yet he won.

Winning any race is being the best runner the day of the competition. That appears to have been the Lydiard approach to training's best asset. The number of Olympic medalists who give credit to following Arthur's plan is highter than any other single coaching system for middle or long distances.

Arthur was a combination of the art and science of coaching. He had the uncanny ability to determine what a runner needed by watching him. That is NOT something that can be described in words. It lives in the fabric of who you are. Atrhur had that ability. Applying his approach will get athletes close to their peak, having that "feel" will take runners to levels they never thought they would reach.

Glenn

Jeffd,

PS

I forgot to answer your second question. Yes, you would want to keep some high end running in your schedule between interval days and race days. But the emphasis obviously is not on the aerobic work as much. So you wouldn't do that high end aerobic running if it seemed like it was detracting from your anaerobic sessions. Again, the application would have to be worked out on a case by case basis.

HRE wrote:

Zatopek, no. Kuts, Keino, no. Coe, somewhat. El Guerrouj, don't know. Gebreselassie, don't know but it looks like something a Lydiard guy would do. Ron Clark, absolutely, Jon Brown, yes, like Clark in his own words, Rono, yes, mostly from watching Viren. It's in his book.

But there's nothing useful going on here now so the thread is all yours. And for someone who isn't Skuj, you do a heck of a good impression. Nice job with improving your English after it had deteriorated so badly in that last post.

In the past and during their best and productive seasons before he jumps to the marathon event Jon Brown did 3 peaks in the same season. He did peak and did win the Euro cross country champ in November and in the mid-season he did peak in Mars for the world cross country champ and later in the season he did peak for the summer track champ. Can you tell me how he managed to do the Lydiard blocks while peak 3 times in one season or we are allow to break that Lydiard training rule as the 100miles because nothing is made in stone. To what extend we can be considered t train under the Lydiard method ? That´s enough to say that we are ? Are we all Lydiardists without know it ?

HRE, El G's coach has been quoted as saying "for 9 months out of the year, Hicham trains like a 10,000 meters runner" and that during the blocks of training where aerobic conditioning is emphasized, his weekly km total often reaches 200. 180-190 km a week is highly common for him.

However, his training method is very much based on Peter Coe's thoughts. El G's training doesn't have phases that are as strictly delineated as Lydiard would prefer; instead, he has "blocks" where all elements of training are present, but in varying amounts of emphasis. During his "aerobic conditioning phase" the emphasis is put on high-end aerobic running at what Lydiard would definitely call "steady state." However, within that cycle, there would still be small amounts of long reps, short reps, things Lydiard would call "anaerobic capacity training" etc. Likewise, during his "race preparation phase" the emphasis would be on reps at race pace, but he would still do high end aerobic runs. Also, if you find his training logs online (www.mariusbakken.com has them) he is like Coe in that his logs often don't include warmup and cooldowns, which make it look like he wasn't doing as much weekly km's as he really was.

However, I see more similarities between Coe and Lydiard than I see differences. The main reason why they're presented as opposites is the way each man portrayed his method. Lydiard was sure that anaerobic work was overrated, and that high-end aerobic running was the greatest factor in fitness. Peter Coe was insistent on quality as opposed to quantity and simply didn't count warmups, cooldowns, and shakeout jogs as "training."

If you look at actual mileage totals, you'll find that Snell and Coe both did pretty darned similar training- somewhere around 80-90 miles a week during conditioning, then have killer workouts (like Snell's 20x400 in 60 or Coe's infamous 800s in 1:50) and then race like absolute maniacs.

I think the main differences between Snell's training and Coe's training is that Snell had incredible natural strength: he was a giant. What he needed was sufficient endurance to be world class; hence his 2hr steady runs. Coe had great natural endurance; in his younger years, he and his father were sure he was going to be a 5000 meter runner and his youth competitions focused a lot on 3000s and cross country. What the slim, slight Coe lacked was not endurance but strength and raw speed- so he focused on gym sessions and sprint work in order to improve what he lacked.

The two difference focuses (foci?) of these athletes simply reflect their different needs. For those of us who are naturally quite strong, and have pretty darn good footspeed (Snell ran 220 yards on grass in 22.1, I believe. . . that's MOVING) we should focus our efforts on improving our natural endurance- 2hr steady runs, hilly courses, high-end aerobic running. For those of us who are endurance waifs who can go and go and go, maybe we'd be better served with spending some time in the gym and yes, even working with sprinters in order to improve our strength and speed.

Personally, I think that most athletes' biggest problem is their endurance, not their speed. Almost every college team has a bunch of 4:15 milers with 50 or 51 speed over 400. The problem with an athlete like that isn't strength or speed; it's endurance. A 50 second 400 is enough basic speed for at least a 4:04 mile. Yet they're stuck at 4:15. The scores and scores of athletes like that would be better served with listening to Lydiard's insistence on regular 2 hr runs at a steady pace. However, for the 100mpw 4:15 milers who can barely break 60 in a 400, I think the solution for them would be some sprintwork and gym time and try to get that 400 down to 55.

Any coach- whether that coach is a Lydiardite or Coe-Martinite or Daniels acolyte or any kind of "ite" should keep in mind that he trains athletes with individual needs, not just applying some "program" to a bunch of identical robots. Lydiard understood this, Daniels understood this. Peter Coe, I'm sure, would have understood that too, if he had coached other athletes (this isn't a shot at Peter Coe).

From what HRE and Kim have posted over the years, they understand the same thing. The same goes for Nobby or Glenn McCarthy or any of the other so called "Lydiard Cultists" who have coached. This whole useless debate about a cult is taking away from all the great discussion that could be going on.

Lydiard recommended a slow transition into the anaerobic... don't expect to run 400 or 800 repeats the first week as fast as you'll do them the fifth week....ultimately, he suggested you run as you feel,

Craig, thanks for your post. It is very well written. One question, though. Doesn't your use of the terms "high-end aerobic running" and "steady state" mistakenly suggest that Lydiard did not understand the value of easy running?

The mistake was mine, definitely- Lydiard understood the value of easy running.

But his base phase wasn't the "long, slow, distance" it gets branded as. Nobby has said that Snell would run at least a few of his weekly ten-milers in 52-55 minutes. That would be his "high end aerobic running." When he needed to, I'm sure Snell ran slower. When he felt good, I'm sure he ran at the higher end of the aerobic spectrum.

Lydiard's assertion that base running should be at "best aerobic pace" reminds me a lot of El G's coach's thoughts on base running. Basically, the effort level is the same every day- a good, strong aerobic pace. You finish feeling "comfortably tired." Sometimes, that effort will yield 7:06 pace. . . sometimes that effort will yield 5:30 pace or 6:30 pace or 8:30 pace. The important part is the good, solid effort. I think that's why Lydiard later emphasized running for time. An hour at a solid aerobic effort is an hour of solid aerobic effort- it's relatively unimportant if you cover 9 miles or 11 miles or 10.3 miles in that hour. The important part is that you're working at an aerobic pace relative to your fitness for an hour

While I kind of disagree with this and believe that there is a more exact science, I have to say that for the most part race pace is overrated.

I was getting ready to run a 9:20 3200 and never did my 800s at 2:20, they were always in the 2:25 range. I never did quarters at 70 either, they were always at sub 68. I did my 1000s at 73s and 5x2000s around 80s. I did my 200s (only did 200s once) at 27. I ran my 4-5 mile tempo days at 5:30s. At the very end, aka 4 days before my peak race, I did 4x800 with 2:20 rest at 2:21, 2:20, 2:22, 2:23.

After all that, I went out and ran a 9:20, a total of 5 quarters at 9:20 pace, 4 days before, during 800 repeats.

CraigMac4h wrote:

HRE, El G's coach has been quoted as saying "for 9 months out of the year, Hicham trains like a 10,000 meters runner" and that during the blocks of training where aerobic conditioning is emphasized, his weekly km total often reaches 200. 180-190 km a week is highly common for him.

Everytime i read Lydiardism posts i understand how inadequate inapropriate and illegitimate the Lyiardism it is. A cult of veneration preciselly.

I see how far goes and how exaggerate the cult and how the illegitimacy that goes. I understand how illegitimate is the Lydiard cult when name and considers Lydiard training whatever would that be. This enforces my opinion. For the Lydiardim no modern training exists out of the Lydiard mehod. This is the Lydiard dogma.

Let´s see.

To train in the Lydiard you have to train the typical marathon training among other elements requirements. But well...Mr. Kim Stevenson considers himself a Lydiard despite he says he never did the 100miles prescription... but what really matters ? Lydiard traning isn´t made in stone he says. Lydiard did accept. Each case is an individual case. What that means ? It means that if we break the Lydiard essentials we are still considered to train in the Lydiard way. How far and how much and in what extend we can break each one of the requiremets of the Lydiard way and we are still considered to train the Lydiard way ? An example. If in my individual case i just do 90miles ? And 80miles, and 60miles and 40miles ? To what mileage extend i´m still in the Lydiard traning ?

CraigMac4h says about El Guerrouj that he is a Lydiad runner. El Guerrouj he did regular weight training and plyometrics and hard track anaerobic workouts during the winter build-up season. That elements are considered important issues in El Guerrouj training plan. I don´t remember that Lydiard advises nothing of that elements. Otherwise everything i read it says Lydiard is opposed to it. But what really matters ?

Hard winter track inteval workouts duirng the build up period combned with t aerobic condition, weights, all that elements are cnsidered crucials in the context of El Guerrouj training. That´s not me that says it. That´s Mr. Kadda El Guerrouj coach. Coach Kadda emphasize it. He names to the El Guerrouj traning KADDA METHOD but from what see from the prespective of the Lydiardism he haven´t the right to have a his own training method with his own name The name of Kadda´s training is not Kadda method under the Morocco training tradition. That´s Lydiard method ! It seems that despite major coach success only Lydiard and a few more Lydiard coach friends have the right to name his own training by his own name. Some of them they wrote books and made chamnpions. But does it matters really ? CraigMac4h says El Guerrouj does “for 9 months out of the year, Hicham trains like a 10,000 meters runner" and that during the blocks of training where aerobic conditioning is emphasized, his weekly km total often reaches 200. 180-190 km a week is highly common for him.” Wait ! And fr this fact makes him a Lydiard runner ? Why ? Just by the fact that he trains aerobic mostly during the winter, independently of what he does that´s opposite or inadvised by the Lydiard method he is a Lydiard runner considered ? Oh...Actually i don´t know of what modern good training method for the middle and long distance events that doesn´t consider the aerobic condition and the aerobic stuff important. Do you know ? Is the fact that one runner emphasize his training on the aerobic enzimatic elements to be named Lydiard method ? The fact that most of the training methods emphasize on the aerobic need makes them all Lydiard ?

Once for all the Lydiardism shall change that point of view to consider that the fact that we insist in the aerobic training that´s Lydiard training.But from the running history as well as actual and modern training methodologic as well as physiology knowledge among Lydiardism it seems they are outdate or some knowledge deficiency what´s going on the 21th century . They are outdate of course. Let me say how we approach to the aerobic question since soem decades ago.

The question is this. ACTUALLY THE AEROBIC CONDITION NEED FOR ALL DISTANCE EVENTS UP TO 800m THAT IS A HUMANITY PATRIMONY. HUMANITY KNOWLEDGE AND A SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE POCESSES IT SICE LONG AGO. THAT´ NOT AN EXCLUSIVE OR A AUTOURSHIP OF THE LYDIRD METHOD AND NEVER DID. That´s not a training concept or a training methodology that can be confined to any traning method. Tht´s not an exclusive of the Lydiard method. That´s simply a training element – an important one of the Lydiard method, as well as every other method, of every other training model. To consider it Lydiard that´s the same to consider that everyone that does interval traning workouts they train by the Greisheler-Reindell method naed Interval training. Greisheler-Reindell they were the first method to stucture it so...Because they were them the first to stucture it that´s not legitime to consider El Guerrouj training Interal training simply because he does it. Also tha´s not legitime to consider El Guerrouj Lydiard traning smply becase he follows some aspects of the Lydiard training. Similarly If so then shall we consider what Peter Snell trained it was no Lydiard traning but Gresheler interval traning. When i look to Peters schedule i see that he Lydiard did include workouts as Gresheler did formulate and und the interval training method considered.

I ask. What kind of patent invention, or credits, or training method authority or superiority the Lydiardism have to name the other training as Lydiard training that the others they don´t ?

The Lydiardism abuse to consider almost everything Lydiard r that cmes from the Lydiard authorship it have a name. ILLEGITIMATION.

Mr. Cabral, did you bother to read the rest of my post?

Because I believe I was quite clear that I was not a "Lydiardist." In the rest of my post, I focused on the similarities between two supposedly "opposite" coaching philosophies.

I did not say El G was a "Lydiard" runner. I just pointed out that there were a lot of similarities with the way his coach trains him and the way Lydiard would have gone about it. Are there differences? Absolutely.

But some people choose to focus on what unites us, not what divides. I would rather look at 10 world class runners and go "what is it that these guys have in common?" in an attempt to determine what made them great. When I look at the training of some of history's greatest runners, I see far more similarities in their training than I see differences.

To discount the importance of Lydiard in the foundation of modern training is utter folly. He was easily one of the most influential coaches in athletics history. I would argue that Lydiard, Cerutty, and Gerschler uncovered about 90% of the "essential ingredients" for training correctly solely by experimentation and educated guesswork. The remaining 10% is the stuff that modern coaches (Coe, Daniels, Vigil, etc, etc) have contributed or fine-tuned the discoveries of those three men.

Just because one aspect of an athletes' training doesn't fit with the "dogma" of a coach doesn't mean that athlete isn't trained according to the principles of that coach. Peter Snell raced pretty much year round- look at his logs and you'll see a lot of 4:10-4:14 "exhibition" mile races in the middle of his base phase. You could look at those and scream "SNELL RACED DURING BASE PHASE, HE DIDNT TRAIN ACCORDING TO LYDIARD!!!!" but you'd just be making a fool out of yourself.

If I said "Ah, I see Jim Spivey did a high volume of very short distances. I see the influence of Mihaly Igloi in his training program," does that make me an Igloi cultist? Just because we see similarities between athletes doesn't mean we're cultists.

Bill Rodgers did a super high volume (2oo miles a week on occasion) of quite slow running. If I say "Ah, that looks like something Ernst Van Aaken would do if he was Rodgers' coach," does that make me a Van Aaken cultist?

We get it, Mr. Cabral. You don't like Lydiard training. Ok, that's fine. You don't have to. But how about you leave the very informative, helpful people who know a lot about Lydiard's training alone.

Because there are similarities in training methods does not mean that the coaches were influenced by Lydiard.

Arthur Lydiard has been a big influence in the USA mostly. In most of europe and east africa they don't even know who is Arthur Lydiard. The same applies in Central and Latin America.

So that would mean the Finns don't know him? Odd, as he was their national coach in the late 60s. The Danes don't know him? Same thing. The East Germans were always bringing him to East Germany to give talks and answer questions. Van Aaken referenced him in some of his writings. Anders Garderud largely used Lydiard training. Knut Kvalheim is on the board here saying that what he did in his prime was mostly influenced by Lydiard, so they seem to have known him in Norway and Sweden. He was national coach in Mexico and Venezuala. Odd how people don't know him in all those places.