Lydiard Philosophy

I'll try again:

You don't always have to be "burning more energy" to inrease speed. You can also increase power output by improving your elastic return from muscles and tendons.

You can greatly improve your race times without increasing metabolic rate.

I think the solutions to the plateau phenomenon are simple. Why does training philosophy and application have to be complicated?

It seems to me that a lot of people make it complicated because their heads are too full of bad science or obsessions about mileage, etc.

weIInow wrote:

I'll try again:

You don't always have to be "burning more energy" to inrease speed. You can also increase power output by improving your elastic return from muscles and tendons.

You can greatly improve your race times without increasing metabolic rate.

That actually has nothing to do with what I said. I'm strictly talking about differences in energy requirments for different stride lengths and the same cadence rate.

You used the words "burning more energy" which not always true. With better elastic return you are saving energy compared to when you run with less elastic return.

Also, the many skills of neuromuscular coordination provide many ways to better efficiency.

I'm just talking about the general differences between stride lengths. If you're just bent on winning the point, then whatever floats your boat.

I have to say, although in other posts Wellnow has come across rather badly, he does have some interesting ideas simply because his views are so different to the commonly accepted norms. Anything that we don't know much about scares us and often causes hostility.

I have to commend him on sticking to his guns and at least looking outside the box.

The length x frequency thing is interesting. I knew an ex-coach who used this very idea with all his runners. To him running speed is simple stride length times stride frequency. End of. If you increase length and maintain the same frequency you will run faster. It was irrelevant to him if it was V02Max, Economy, etc etc etc, simply one or either had to be improved without reducing the other.

Wellnow, you mentioned power in an earlier post. As far as I'm aware power is simply producing the same amount of force at a quicker rate than before. How would you suggest improving this? I take it hills would be high on your list as they've been proven to really increase power by making your muscles contract faster than on the foot. The coach I mentioned before used to have his runners (even 5k runners) run up hills dragging a tyre behind them.

Danny Komen wrote:

The length x frequency thing is interesting. I knew an ex-coach who used this very idea with all his runners. To him running speed is simple stride length times stride frequency. End of. If you increase length and maintain the same frequency you will run faster. It was irrelevant to him if it was V02Max, Economy, etc etc etc, simply one or either had to be improved without reducing the other.

I think more correctly, it would be the combination of stride length and cadence to produce the best pace/speed. As long as the product produces better results, that's the main key. Speed equates to the product of cadence*stridelength, but it's actually worthwhile to understand which relationship of the components give the best result.

When I was a kid I spent a lot of time around standardbred horses. Sbreds are generally trained as either trotters or pacers. Trotters move diagonally opposing legs in sync, while pacers move legs on the side in sync. Trainers indicate it's more natural for a horse to trot than pace, and most pacers wear a hobble to force the style, even when racing. However pacers are overall faster than trotters, so despite the less natural stride, it results in a faster pace.

Runners tend to do what feels natural, but it hardly means that's what will produce the best result. Ed Eyestone wrote in an issue RW a couple of years ago that it's hard for him to now exceed 160, whereas his competitive rate was around 180ish. I tend to naturally overstride and hover around 160 in cadence, so I spend time doing nothing but keeping cadence up. Almost always it feels like a tempo run regardless of the pace but I know it helps. I train with the philosophy that one run supports another, and I'll do very short intervals (like 200 meters) with the sole intention of forcing a fast turnover. I think that helps me keep a better turnover rate when doing a tempo.

weIInow wrote:

I think the solutions to the plateau phenomenon are simple.

OK, then explain to us how to simply vault over plateaus that most of hit very easily and struggle greatly to break through, if we ever do. C'mon, since it is so simple, you should be able to do it in a few sentences, and we should all be able to apply your simple concepts easily over the next few months and all have a set of new shiny PR's by the beginning of next year, right? Man, I can't wait!

weIInow wrote:

Eventually someone will run 25 laps in under 25 minutes, and I am absolutely sure that it can be done without drugs, and the runner doesn't have to be some genetic freak.

.

Of course you think someone will do this (because improving is so easy when following the "wellnow" way). And of course you think that whoever does this will not be a "genetic freak", because...... you don't believe in genetic freaks. A translation of your past comment that "there is no such thing as talent", is: no one has genes more suited to running fast than anyone else.

Questions for you: when do you think someone will run under 25 minutes? and ..

if it is so likely that someone will break 25 minutes, why hasn't a single non-african runner even been able to break 27:05 ??? The non-african record has stood for over 20 years! Let's work on getting a white american or european under 27:10 before we worry about sub 25!

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

All this presumes it's even possible, because maybe I'm genetically gifted with legs which are less than optimal length, or Popeye calves which are a little too muscular for the required power to weight ratio.

Just to reiterate, you do realize you are debating this with someone who does not believe that there is anything such as physical talent, right?

That is what he has stated. Unless he wants to retract that past statement........?

I'm not trying to complicate training with notions of bad science (at least here anyway).My point is, unless I'm missing something obvious, that to answer "how do I go from 26:17.53 to sub-25", with "how do I go from 190spm x 2.0018mps for 10K to 190spm x 2.1053mps for 10K" brings me no closer. It only changes how I describe the problem.Perhaps I asked too many questions, but clearly, an important part of any successful application of a training philosophy requires proper interpretation of feedback. What's working? What isn't? Where am I strong? Where am I weak? Recognizing the feedback properly, and making the correct adjustments, is probably more important than the basic philosophy. Any good philosophy will do, as long as the right corrections are made.If we speak about Lydiard, this is where I think he was strongest as a coach. He had some pretty firm ideas, some on the money, and some not, but he also knew well enough when it was time to bend, or break, some principles, to get through a certain problem. Applying his principles and philosophies blindly will bring some good results to most athletes, but having a coach with a keen sense of observation, and the ability to make mid-course alterations (deviations from the plan and the philosophies) is crucial to turning club-class runners to national, international, world class runners. This is the common trait of any successful coach, regardless of their philosophies.I wonder if the solutions to the plateau phenomenon are so simple, why is Bekele's 10K record 4 years old? Why hasn't he simply solved the plateau problem, and kept improving the record each year? Is he too obsessed with finding his lactate threshold?It's interesting to see Ritz right now. I'm sure Hudson is a fine coach, but Ritz is excited again, and so are we.It's also interesting to wonder if Webb will solve his plateau problem.After New York, we could add Ryan Hall, and Paula to the list of "interesting" people to watch.

weIInow wrote:

I think the solutions to the plateau phenomenon are simple. Why does training philosophy and application have to be complicated?

It seems to me that a lot of people make it complicated because their heads are too full of bad science or obsessions about mileage, etc.

Thanks Sir Lance,An important lesson I learned from Lydiard is that you don't have to be factually right about everything, to be successful.There is a danger of assigning poor performances due to lack of talent, or lack of genetics, and eventually giving up the sport. Preaching that there is no such thing as "talent" or "genetic freaks", may serve to motivate "less-talented" athletes to persevere, and ultimately reach their potential.I'm thinking of athletes like Ron Daws, and Brian Sell, who were nothing special during their early years, yet ultimately became Olympians.I don't have a problem with wellnow not believing in "talent" and "genetics", especially if it helps others realize their potential. Not everyone can be champions, but everyone can reach their potential.I'm not trying to debate wellnow so much as probe him for better explanations of his viewpoints.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Just to reiterate, you do realize you are debating this with someone who does not believe that there is anything such as physical talent, right?

That is what he has stated. Unless he wants to retract that past statement........?

Thanks Danny Komen. Which one are you BTW?

The benefit of hills is that you can train harder running uphill because of the resistance. I wouldn't drag a tyre uphill, or anywhere, because you get all the resistance you need running uphill.

Ground contact time is much less running up a steep hill because you are running slower, so the forces are different. The longer ground contact time probably make it easier to concentrate, and this is very different to maintianing a high power output on the flat. I see hill running and flat ground running as very different skills.

To increase your pace on the flat, you have to learn the skill of pushing harder, which reqires perfect timing when the foot is touching the ground, whilst the timing of the movements of the swinging leg determine how that extra force will be directed, without wasting too much moving your body vertically, enabling a longer stride. It's important not to try too hard when you practice this, because of course you have to balance speed and endurance.

The ideal way to push harder during ground contact is to gain as much elastic rebound as possible whilst using as little extra energy as possible. Of course it takes a lot of practice.

rekrunner. I don't think Kenenisa Bekele has ever worried about his 'lactate threshold' or even if such a phenomenon exists. That is for the scienticians to fret over.

To break out of a plateau, I have always found the most effective method is to stop doing some of the things I have been doing and start doing some of the things I haven't been doing. The key is to identify those things.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Questions for you: when do you think someone will run under 25 minutes? and ..

if it is so likely that someone will break 25 minutes, why hasn't a single non-african runner even been able to break 27:05 ??? The non-african record has stood for over 20 years! Let's work on getting a white american or european under 27:10 before we worry about sub 25!

Sub 25 in the next 70 years, I'm willing to put a lot of money on that.

Why can't non Africans break 27? Well generally speaking, white boys are pussies. I don't think this is genetic though, so you can't call me a racist.