Lydiard Imitations

First, the anaerobic training produces quickly ability only if you do one anaerobic training as Lydiard style does. What Lydiard did ? For example Lydiard uses anaerobic training once a day during the last months before the peak competition (except the weekly long run) and it´s this high anaerobic training frequency that produces quickly ability, not if the specific training (not anaerobic precisely) is spread along the season in progressive continuum with weekly frequency that is no more than 2-3 times a week and with aerobic training in between the specific workouts sessions. Therefore, no doubt that on Lydiard training style the shape progress goes too quickly, why not, if the anaeroobic trainig it´s done almost daily what is a training misunderstand because anaerobic training shall be followed by afew days of easy training to promote adequate overcompensation also named suoercompensation.

Second, it´s about your multi-season career reference as well as more than one peak/taper during one year round. This are 2 important reasons why the training shalln´t be "aerobic first". Runners with long careers and

multi-season approach besides they have benefits to change the training pattern season by season or from one target goal to the next target goal, they shall implement the kind of training that might not be absent of specific training if not during exceptional contexts.

Besides if one runners does aerobic first during the first phase of the first season, and then is followed by anaerobic training in late season closer to the competitive phase, what he does when he gets back for the second season that he does "aerobic training first" ? He does the aerobic first or he does the "aerobic after" the anaerobic phase of the first season ?

The runner career seen as multi-season shall be seen as training combo

of efforts. As one famous italian runners said "if you think about a long time career you have 10 years to progress your aerobic condition, so ther´s no need to stay a long period while doing "aerobic first".

Rich training shall be seen as a combo of several paces efforts, of several stimulus be generic from specifics or aerobic to anaerobic with miss no one but include every one on every season period. What the runner needs to do is to do all kind of training paces and what changes is different frequency, different intensity, different volume, depending of the season moment, the distance training event, his actual shape condition and training individualisation. If you act like this peak and taper it´s a question of the week before the competition.

Runners that i know that did long careers do train as i say, Their training it´s a combo of several paces and training modulation is about to change the frequency the intensity and the volume of training.

snowden

Excuse me. Despite what i said it´s not literal, because only you can transcript what we hear, but now i realise that i was wrong. He asks "don´t you agree ?" and some people from the audience says "I don ´t" and some other people says "I do" and next one by one they all say why they agree and why hey don´t.

Next time i will take care. It´s not fair, with so much knowledge and disagreement, and i say they just agree because it is a tricky idiot answer on that context and and ignorant answers.

I'm not sure what else I know. I know that you're right and they did some faster running on their way down that hill and I know that Dick Quax never did a hill phase though a lot of his base runs were over hilly terrain and he had a slow interval phase that he used as a transitional period.

That may be about it unless you come up with a question that jogs another memory.

In which context? I don't want to play this "what is aerobic/anaerobic?" game too long either. Since we are in a Lydiard thread, I use the terms that Lydiard used, the way he used them, to promote the broadest understanding.Forget everything you know about oxygen, lactate, and lactic acid. Aerobic/anaerobic training is measured by blood pH in the arteries. It's clear, simple, significant, and measurable. "Anaerobic" training requires both high volume and high intensity.The goal of "aerobic training" is to improve qualities like endurance and stamina."Anaerobic" training would include harder intensities, that lower the blood pH, or more significantly the arterial blood pH (e.g. in the earlobe, rather than in the leg muscles). This is usually associated with interval training at the track.Interval training with higher intensities can still be "aerobic", if it doesn't drop the arterial blood pH, e.g. with short recovery intervals.Hope this clears up how I use the terms.

incarnation wrote:

Define Aerobic training? Define Anaerobic training?

Antonio,

Call me a masochist, but yes, I read most of what you write. You are at your best when you talk about interval training, modern training methodology, and portuguese training history. You are at your worst when you are attacking others (including Lydiard), defending yourself from attacks, and generally rambling on about something bordering incomprehensible.

I enjoy your enthusiasm and passion, and knowledge of training, but I'm equally exasperated by what I perceive as your basic misunderstandings, and often attempting to understand what you write, and what your point could possibly be, or wondering what are you reacting to.

I often think of you as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, when I'm not thinking of you as a Don Quijote fighting a Lydiard strawman.

You know that ad for photo retouching, with the girl with freckles, who morphs into a model? I see the evolution of training something like that. Canova once said something like "in the old days, we had 3 speeds, slow, medium, and fast". Now he talks about no less then 7 important pace ranges, around the race pace, which develop subtly different qualities.

But now, I want to move on from Lydiard. Let's make a deal between me and you, and not talk about him anymore.

How do I see "anaerobic" training? Like you say, it produces ability quickly, especially how Lydiard (sorry) did it, and my understanding is, the main danger of doing it too early in the training, with too much frequency, is peaking early, then stagnating or degrading before the end of the season, or the big race. But, if this "anaerobic" training is managed properly, with some kind of balance, I completely understand how in another approach, it can be included in the very beginning of the training season, avoiding the main dangers of peaking early, and stagnation.

How do I see "aerobic" training? Let me point you to Hadd's lengthy six-part descriptions of his phase 1 training, first by looking at who needs this kind of "aerobic" training. He talked about relationships between different race distances. If the relationship is "loose", or gets "looser" as the distance gets longer, then this athlete should pay attention to strengthening this identified weakness. But, if the relationship is already "tight", as it already is for most seasoned athletes, then you no longer need to strengthen that which is already strong.

But I see this kind of focused attention "aerobic" development happening only once, if ever, say for 1 or 2 years at most, and only for athletes who need it, because they are aerobically weak, and it's important for their event. Of course, if the athlete is a middle distance runner, the relationship between his 10K, to 21.1K to marathon matters a whole lot less.

Or, if you want, another approach is that this focused attention to "aerobic-only" development never happens. Instead it progresses steadily, in tandem with anaerobic development, over the years as balanced part of a "modern" approach.

Gypsy

Latterly I miss to reply to you, it´s not lack of interest on the debate.

What is very hard it´s to start debating one issue, the early one is “Lydiard imitation” and then we go from disagreement to disagreement on every other subject some of that subjects are very distant than the original subject of debate.

When I did post some articles and you ask me many questions, my intention it´s not that I agree with all that those articles, that in fact you confess that you don´t read but just the summary. My intention It let you know about some information that in some conclusions – not the complete article - might constitute a clue of analysis around the subject that we are discuss.

To get my conclusion that “aerobic first” isn´t rich training I got to go deeply in certain training aspects of the distance training approach as is the specificity or the compartmented training, the fractal training, or the linear or non-linear season periodisation.

the pass-old typical linear-training periodisation divides the season in parts, blocks (phases or periods cycles, micro-cycles and enforces that kind of approach and training plan which the “aerobic first” it´s the typical example of monopolistic approach to training planning.

However, further progress The basis of contemporary based on scientific knowledge as well l in distance training methodology, reinforces the contradictions between the old-traditional periodisation. Without deny some success of the linear-periodisation, further successful experiences of prominent coaches and athletes that did use the non-linear periodisation shows that in the results and performances of that new type of periodisation (the non-linear) it´s not just methodologically superior but able to best effective results that the linear-peridisation. That results do reveal that the non-linear peridisation it´s not just conceptual, but it´s pratical application.

The adoption of this non-linear system requires reformation of many theoretical positions and practical guidelines, which previously seemed unshakable. The norm of the non-linear training periodisation concept proposes the consecutive training stimulation of carefully selected fitness components. If we refer the non-linear approach to distance training this means that the concept of “aerobic first” compartmented training makes no sense, since if we consider the distance training by 2 main systems – the aerobic and the anaerobic – training shall be a combo of stimulus of both systems, and if we consider distance training by lactic or alactic – both training stimulus shall be used during the same training phase.

Actually the non-linear or complex periodisation proposes proposes the sequencing of

specialized training unities, which contain highly concentrated

workloads directed to the final tragte that´s improve the resistance training which in the case of distance training approach requires a certain number of specialized training, and by norm the specific training is present at every moment during the season process, and the principle of continuity is the prime principle, side-by-side with the repetition principle and the supercompensation principle.

The non-linear or traditional distance runperiodisation proposes one kind of season periodisation that is seen from extensive training (volume and mileage and aerobic) to intensity (speed, anaerobic), while the non-linear periodisation proposes both togheter, in the mean time that the season is seen as goes from extensive training to intensive training it´s also seen with some training unities going from intensity to extensively. As ultimate training target it´s always the specific training.

Lydiard periodisation that is linear periodisation because the various major training stimulus are kind of compartmented training - aerobic first aerobic, hills strength , anaerobic late etc – it´s arranged in a “line” in which each block and stimulus gives way to the next. This approach is distinct from the non-linear periodisation, which the various major training stimuli are mixed together throughout the entire cycle and only the emphasis changes from period to period as the season moves up.

If it´s true that the introduce of fast training of high intensity too soon and too much load or frequency may lead to injury or might be inadequate to promote shape condition at the right peak moment of competition, but if every kind of qualified training (closer to the specific) but the complex non-linear periodisation it´s an harmonious and quite progressive distribution of the effort along the season. Therefore critic to the complex non-linear periodisation that says that goes too fast too soon it´s not adequate, since every step of the process of build up top shape is analyzed and seen as progressive charge loads.

It´s here on the non-linear kind of periodisation ther´s no room for training concepts like “aerobic first”.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

in english the meaning of endurance it´s wrong meaning. the same with specificity.

Slightly off-track, but how can you say that the meaning of a word in any language is wrong? Saying that the word means different things in different languages I can understand, but saying it is wrong is just, well, wrong!

And slightly back on track, as somebody who has so many issues with Lydiard's training methodology, couldn't you simply afford the same respect to Lydiard's methods as you request for your own - i.e. the acknowledgement that they are different and may be both equally valid in their own ways?

Or is your life so without meaning you have to jump in and try force your views down people's throats everytime Lydiard is mentioned (which, from what I can see, is what you have been doing for years)?

You have some good ideas, but at times you really come across as a domineering, irritating, want your way to be the only way, prat.

hi, this is better.

Basically , my frustration lies with you dodging me all the time. On all the specific questions i ask you and the specific points i make. I know i am very direct, i could be more circular like yourself, but this is not my style when dealing with this sport on this particular level. Whereas on the level of practical coaching it is a very different thing of course, the personality comes into play a lot more. But here in the refined spaces of the mind, our intellect should be sharpened to a razors edge should it not? So i like to be precise and this is where we are having the difficulty, on quite a fundamental level.

I don't know where to go with you except to ask that we are straight up and deal directly with what each other says. Apart from that i think we need some boundaries. Lets say there are three 'languages' in track and field. There is the Physiological - those scientific terms used in an attempt to describe what we do. There is the Methodological - which is the systemisation of the processes involved in coaching, specifically by those involved in the practising of the craft. Then there is the 'Folk' language to use your own term. That language used by people like Lydiard and Cerutty and so on. For me this is the language of feel and is grounded in a practical working of the craft. This language is very individual, often the definitions are shared by a single person and those in direct connection only. The meanings of specific words and phrases are difficult to comprehend if one doesn't share a common experiential background. I think this is the trouble with Lydiard and people like yourself. It is a different experiential background so the language cannot be shared. Then you have the universal language of Science the Physiologists and their sports science friends use to describe what we do. This has limited success in my perspective but is an essential part of what we do now. It defines certain boundaries we know we shouldn't cross. The rules of the universe so to speak. It can be a valuable diving rod from day to day. It doesn't form the base of my analysis because it isn't grounded in the practical, in the real. It is ungrounded thinking. So it cannot directly inform us of how to improve at our sport, it can just give ideas to try and experiment with. Alternatively, it can guide ones own 'experience path' so certain experiments need never be done, because they would fall outside of the rules, or they have been done before by someone else so we can learn from their mistakes instead of having to make them on our own all the time. Between the languages of Science and Folk grows the language of Methodology. It too takes various forms, because it can come from one of two sources. If it is grown from the 'Folk', from the individual experience of the 'Folk Coach', then it will be like Lydiard or Cerutty. If it is grown from the 'Scientific', the intellectual learning (college) of the 'Scientific Coach' then it will be more alike what i see in this Modern Training Methods chatter. Lots of scientific terms describing things about training. A lot of objective terminology learned from someone else and still in the early stages of being applied. Not much if any subjective language. Language describing an analysis of their own experiences is absent. There is not much evidence of any practical experience at all in many cases. I'm not talking about you here. You clearly are not this type of coach. Possibly you use the scientific terminology here and there because of the language noobery situation. Thank goodness we aren't doing this in Portuguese.

Language, language language. I prefer to minimise the scientific language and focus on the methodological. In this way we can access the 'Folk' of Lydiard and his fellow 'Folk' heros. Perhaps we will have success if we try and connect The Folk all the way to The Science. I think it is harder to to but a good challenge.

To continue this investigative process we are going to have to debate back-and-forth, between whoever joins in, on each and every issue, that is considered debatable and some we make up as we go. This Aerobic First, The Long Run, Hill Bounding, Fractal (or whatever) Periodisation, 3/4 pace, etc. Lets go through each one and debate it. Lets find rationale and reason or lack of. Lets debate the definitions of each as to what could actually have been intended. Let is hope many people with direct experience of the man provide their interpretation. I'm sure we can get to the bottom of this and why Snell can't be considered just a fluke situation. And Halberg and Magee didn't get dragged along for the ride. And the rest of the entire lineage of people coached or influenced by Lydiard isn't just a mass fantasy and they all suffer the same delusion. That Lydiard is Christ reborn. The prophet of our times ... yadda yadda

Anyway, to me these disagreements are all stupid and can probably be explained away if we look deep enough. Remember lydiard went deep, really really deep. So we probably have to go somewhat deep to take a look at where he was coming from. My own foundation in this sport is a Soviet Model modified for necessity by my coach. From living that experience for a decade and now looking into Lydiard, i can see that he found similarly to what the Soviets found, more or less. I find these similarities remakable. That the experiment of the many and the experiment of the one (few) could yield many similar, if not identical observations as each another. So my confusion as to why there is so much argument occurring makes me want to cut through that confusion.

Plus this entire "Lydiard Situation" is just so damn interesting that i just can't let it go. Lydiard was a master craftsmen of the highest order to me and deserves a thorough yet gentle observation. You know what i mean. You just want people to listen softly to you, so they can hear what you are really saying. I can hear you, even when you are going around in circles and making me dizzy. We might be too different you and i. I don't know.

(I just deleted two paragraphs here on Lydiards greatness to spare you the grief :p) I even kept the first sentence of the next paragraph to show you!

(Anyway i know that probably pisses you off so lets move on.) Let us just debate the issues right in front of us. Perhaps you can start with what seems to be your favourite - 'Aerobic First'.

Once in while the debate goes out of training debate straight and we talk about our temper, our personal kind of expression, our idiosyncrasy.

Latterly it´s what you did on you last post. I have something to say also about it, since you push that envelope, then I skip the training debate for a while and I it´s my right to comment over what you say in the personality matter, things like Don Quixote etc. Don Quixote is Spanish temper paradigm and we don´t like it much, we like Luis de Camoes and Fernando Pessoa it´s the ones similar to my national temper. However I don´t want to get out of the subject too much.

What you say on your last post is just this. You like what I write when you agree and when I don´t challenge and contest your training ideas and you don´t like when my training methodology faces your own by opposition, because you like it or you don´t what I say it depends if you agree or you don´t. All that you agree “i´m a good man, a good citizen, a good temper, a coach expert” when you don´t agree or when I challenge your our training convictions “i´m the bad guy, I mr. Hyde”. This is the easy way. It´s easy to like from those that we both add the same ideas, but it´s hard to share some affection for those that at the mind-logic operation we disagree and we don´t feel affinity of ideas.

However what you say about me it´s a total contradiction. What I say about interval training, portuguese training etc – all that parts that you like it – it´s by the same precise training principles that I did disagree from you or Lydiard.

I said it once, I will say it twice. Most of my posts, that I did contest the Lydiard training were done AFTER hundreds of posts that were open which the subject is nothing but Lydiard reverence, or Lydiard subject anyhow. Therefore I just take a dynamic response to what I early I read.

Take this example. Who open this one thread of “Lydiard imitation” ? It was not me, it was someone else before my posts. Who did post and name the Lydiard training before me ? You are the one that did post. Therefore the Lydiard subject rarely it´s not my initiative, it´s your initiative, it´s not me that covers the LRC board with hundreds of threads, thousand of posts which the subject it´s nothing but comment on Lydiard. I ask you: I am I excluded to this debate because I disagree ? I guess I don´t. What you do is nothing but inflate on the Lydiard interest among every other interesting training subjects debate we might do.

Resuming, my insistence on Lydiard it´s a normal reaction, a good-sense response, not persecutory, but the result of inflate and high number, excessive threads about nothing but Lydiard reverence on this board.

You comment is similr to the idea of Mr. Nobby that we just might produce and write "positive comments". What are positive comments on your mind ? POsitive comments are the ones that agree with you and all that doesn´t agree with him is negative comments. Very tricky.

I was waiting for this move, and here it happens. Jonh Hadd. Helas or Voila !

You will stress to push John Hadd the way he will be seen by the Lydiard adept and enthroned as the Lydiard paradigm. Typical of yoir argument don´t you think ? We are all Lydiardists, we all doing Lydiard training all that kind of stuff, Lydiard. One famous Italian coach that also expresses that Lydiard is outdate, actually he is quoted to justify Lydiard. I hope I willn´t die soon, because I imagine that after death I will be quoted as a Lydiard coach.

It´s very funny, that now that is dead, you mean – I guess it was for the first time of John Hadd. Once again it was you that did introduce this subject.

Of course it´s your style, he isn´t here to defend himself no more. I ask you one thing. Do you want that I post or turn on public the hundreds of email correspondence shared between me and John Hadd where he expresses quite total disagreement about Lydiard training ? Do you want that I post what John Hadd said about MacMillan, HRE, or Kershall ? Do you want that I post want John things about those Lydiard representatives and the relationship that he had been with some of them ?

The main distance in between me and John it´s not about disagreement with Lydiard or Lydiard disagreement, the only distance it´s that John a tremendous rich human being he used to play polite and delicate man, and i´m not so tolerant to stupidity and dirty play.

If you want to start to know what John Hadd thinks about Lydiard training start to read the LRC threads “Advice on my 800m Training Plan?” the LRC thread “Greg McMillan” or “Steve Magness Interview - Science of Running”, “Improving lactic acid use: run uphill, downhill then uphill?”

On that threads John did post as “Ö” name/nickname. Read and take your own conclusion.

As you may realize John, that was a very private individual and tried avoid some discuss and conflicts, in some occasions he did posts while express total disagreement to some Lydiard training issues.

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

But now, I want to move on from Lydiard. Let's make a deal between me and you, and not talk about him anymore.

One more break on the training debate.

First the question about my posts it´s about that I did post anonymous. Mr. Nobby did write one post to show his disagreement about what I did. I taugh his demand to post just with identification as undemocratic, illegal to the LRcom rule, and quite unfair that I couldn´t a accept. However the same Mr. Nobby that did comment that is outrageous to post anonymous with nick name, he respond and share posts discuss with post individual that posts as “rekrunner”. Since and I don´t know who you are, it´s a contradiction and anyhow it´s a kind of censorship that I can´t accept.

Actually I see that the question it´s that I refer Lydiard too much and you want that I agree to debate with you with both of us not mean that famous New Zeland coach or his training. This is a confinement, a censorship, one unfair proposal that I can´t accept. I would accept it if we did share posts about training just me and you on a locked thread that only both do post and no one else, because as you might understand with an open thread everyone can post and we can´t have agreement from everybody that will not post about Lydiard. The more the subject of this Thread is “Lydiard imitations” how can you limit people to post about the Lydiard subject. No way

Let me tell you a true fact related with me about “not talk about Lydiard”. I tell you this because i´m nothing to hide, some others do but I don´t, i´m an “open book”.

Some months ago Mr. Christopher Kelsall email me to ask about interview me for FloTrack by email share, but since the first email share he said that he just accepts to interview me if I don´t comment on Lydiard on that interview.

I knew that early on he did the same interview proposal to John Hadd but the interview will be done with the same condition “not to refer Lydiard”. John of course didn´t accept because as he told me he taught that a censorship and a confinement he couldn´t accept, and he the interview with John wasn´t that by that reason. John did comment on me why the reason he could talk about everything except Lydiard.

Then when the same man did the same proposal to me, it did knew what was his inner intention. But I did reply that since he didn´t ask me about Lydiard I had no reason to answer about his questions with the Lydiard theme. I did that with no problem, and when the interview is edit what I read ? He just comments and introduces my answers with his own training opinion, and with Lydiard and Lydiard training meaning. What´s that named ? An unfair and tricky thing. It really doesn´t matter, but this proves to you that willn´t accept from anyone the limitation to not talk nothing about Lydiard training, as you might think that i´m Don Quixote or Mr. Hide.

By the way, I accept that you think that I play by Don Quixote with no problem, I would love to be Don Quixote but I haven´t all the dignity of character which Don Quixote did.

I fight the wind with the sword of “the noble cause” to try to protect the innocents and the injustice, with major reward, no financial reward. But do you know what I think. I imagine play the role of Sancho Pança the way you see things, you have one Master that you follow unconditional with your naïve ignorance and unknown just because the you feel find with the feeling of the Master.

Lay off the weed man.

Why can't people use bullet points instead of prose?

Like I said before, you really are the biggest hypocrit I know of. So when Nobby says something that he doesn't like, that's outrageous and all you had been doing all these years is to say that you don't like Lydiard. What the difference? Why is it so evil if Nobby does it and so righteous if you do it? Nobby's a goner here. He doesn't even come to letsrun any more. Why you keep bringing him up? No one is talking about Nobby here. What is it that you have so strongly against Nobby? We know you hate his guts. Is it why you are trashing Lydiard because Nobby's the Lydiard guy? Or are you really that jealous that Nobby's heading Lydiard Foundatioin?

If you're such an "open book", then why do you have to hide your identity behind so many different names? Rekrunner is known as rekrunner; we don't know who he is, but he's rekrunner. YOu can be O with dots on the top, Kadafi or god knows who else! And now you're saying "O" with dots on top was Hadd? I highly doubt it. Unless of course for some strange reason Hadd had one of those European computer. You're just saying that now Hadd is gone. YOU are the one who's going on and on and on about someone who can't even respond any more. YOU are the one with NO integrity.

So what's this thing about Hadd being anti-Lydiard? You don't want to say it, but you're saying it. Do we need to see your e-mail exchange with Hadd with Hadd saying Lydiard is no good? No, I think you'll make it up anyway. Besides, you are already saying it! THAT is a cheat shot.

You didn't start the thread about Lydiard, that is correct. But you come to every Lydiard thread just to trash it. No wonder no one wants you to talk about Lydiard because we all know it's going to turn into trashy talk anyway. You just think so very highly of yourself, you are such a self righteous guy, man of no integrity, thowing cheap shots all the time. Often you have no point, you just like to trash Lydiard and Nobby for no particular reason.

Antonio,

After reading your comments, I always feel compelled to re-explain what I meant.

I certainly meant no personal offense by comparing you to Don Quixote.

I also did not intend to equate Hadd's training to Lydiard's. I know he wrote comments agreeing with Lydiard, and I accept your word that he wrote comments where he disagreed. I'm sure that he is a coach that took great ideas from many sources (coaches and science), and developed his own approach. I have a great idea of his Phase 1, but next to no idea about his later phases. I only know of Hadd's Phase 1, were he explains in 6 parts how important "aerobic first" was to his athlete Joe, trying to recover his former form. He said after 6 months, they were only half-way there.

It's not ever my purpose to say Lydiard's methods are right, or superior, or that Antonio's training ideas are wrong. I know too little about the subject to draw such firm conclusions. In fact, I try to stay neutral on the subject of who is right or wrong, or who has the best methodology. If you look at any and all of my posts over the last 4 years, I am usually trying to find out exactly what is *wrong* with Lydiard methods, or I am correcting some mis-interpretations about Lydiard, or I am pleading to find out where I can find more information about modern methods. If I seem obsessed about Lydiard, it's because too many "critics" simply draw wrong conclusions based on a small subset of Lydiard myths, because they have an incomplete or wrong set of facts. My main interest is more one of historical correctness, rather than a defense and declaration of a superior methodology. For example, you speak now of linear periodization, but you were unaware he had other alternatives as far back as 1970. I'll let you say "linear periodization is bad", if you let me say "Lydiard didn't always do linear periodization". But I never say that "linear periodization is better than non-linear". I don't know enough to form any conclusions about that.

I don't mind if you challenge and contradict my training ideas (or Lydiard's or Hadd or Canova or the Soviets or ...) at all. In fact, that's what I like most from you. I wish you would only do that. I don't want to censor you, but it's only my personal and selfish wish that you would limit your comments to training, and the occasional Lady Gaga jokes, or New Zealand is the "opposite" of Portugal analogies. Just as you enjoy freedom of speech, I am also free to say what I like and don't like.

And I didn't start this thread, or comment until page 4. I'm actually trying to stay out of these threads now, but not always succeeding, as is "self-evident". I guess we all have our faults.

But getting back to a comment you made to "gypsy", you wrote "further successful experiences of prominent coaches and athletes that did use the non-linear periodisation shows that in the results and performances of that new type of periodisation (the non-linear) it´s not just methodologically superior but able to best effective results that the linear-peridisation. That results do reveal that the non-linear peridisation it´s not just conceptual, but it´s pratical application."

What do you mean that "successful experiences ... show ..." ? Are there some controlled studies, or is it just a new, modern set of anecdotal evidence. If I re-read your Brent Rushall quote, how do I know that all of your statements of "non-linear periodization", "specificity", "progression", "extensive to intensive", and "vice-versa", are not just another instance of what he called "self-evident truths"? In 30 years from now, will we look back and see a new set "of coaching errors" that led to "general slow changes of performance", or that performances "even worsen" because of clinging to new "self-evident truths"?

To put it more directly, here's my question. Are todays results better because they are done by Africans, or because of changes in training methodologies? Today East Africans trained with modern methods, are running much faster than yesterday's Americans, Europeans, Oceanians, trained on ancient methods. We have (at least) two uncontrolled variables here. It would be bad scientific methodology to conclude that the improvements are purely a result of changes in the training methodology, without controlling for ancestry, or for that matter, era. We need long term controlled studies with large samples, to draw such concrete conclusions about training methodologies. At the very least, if Canova trained some Italians to run, or Antonio trained some Portuguese or Spaniards to produce some of these "successful experiences", and "best effective results", this would at least help eliminate a set of genetic and environmental variables unique to East Africans, and lend credibility to claims of superior training methodologies.

Hi rek. I will reply to you because it seems Antonio isn't going to be able to participate in this debate. I'm waiting but fear the wait is in vain.

Neutrality isn't worth it i reckon. Lets get some opinions out there and throw them around and see what sticks. It seems to me, generally speaking, that methodology isn't well understood. It seems that methodology is seen to be some random collation of ideas into a system. This isn't methodology to me. Methodology is something built on training principles and conforms to the training principles as it is applied. Then it can be analysed according to its adherence to training principles, or lack of. If i analyse Lydiard it appears to conform. If i analyse Antonio it appears to only conform partially. Perhaps Antonio can post a training plan of his so we can analyse it. Is this possible from Antonio?

I agree. I want to see some practical application from Antonio. So far he has used a few different methods to argue his case. Historical analysis, which for him unfortunately contains a mis-diagnosis of Lydiard. Physiological debate, even though the studies he has out forward did not support his arguments. And methodological debate and already we have seen his misapplication of one of the fundamental training principles. I am aware his other principles are also similarly misunderstood.

So if history, physiology and methodology aren't fields of knowledge that Antonio has any success in analysing the only thing we have left is practical application. So Antonio show us an example of your practical application. Show us an example of your program.

I would like evidence as well. I would also like Antonio's explanation of his terms. Extensive and Intensive and the relationship between them. What does non-linear actually mean and how is the whole concept developed? What is the underlying rationale that enables its development? What is Antonio's definition of specificity and its opposite generality. Antonio talks about 'progression' and i wold like to see what he means by that and have some concrete examples as to how he applies it.

I don't think these questions are going to be answered and i think many of us realise why now. Still i am hopeful he will summon the courage and start answering questions and defining himself instead of these posts which appear to say nothing of substance. Regardless of his presence or absence lets get on with things.

Good points you are making. I would like to see some long term studies occurring. I find it hard to place much credence in short term studies.

Modern Athletic Training is driven by these short term studies leading to short term thinking and short term results. They have no other choice these 'Modern Athletic Training' coaches. Their methodology is driven by the sports science world. (unlike a Lydiard Type whose methodology was driven by the personal experience and observations on that experience).

Modern Athletic Training is a big mistake. They just don't realise they mistake they are making. Pity. I directed many questions to Antonio but they are meant as questions for you (and anyone) as well. Shall we get into it?

I have a question.How do we define 1/4, 1/2. 3/4, 7/8?I found this in another forum.

the basic pace description was "

1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 7/8

and for beginner the first 2 are really important :

1/4 the intensity and volume was such, that when runners did finish the session, if Lydiard said : now run it all again the same pace, they should be able and sometimes he really did say that to assure they would run slow easy enough

1/2 pace was such that exactly the same session could be repeated next day with no probs

3/4 pace would require at least 1 day full recovery before the session could be repeated 2/3 days later

Do you agree with his analysis? And what other way can these paces be described?

Lydiard was once asked this at a clinic and his answer was, "1/4 effort is about 25% of your maximal effort, 1/2 effort is about 50% of your maximal effort, 3/4 effort is 75% of..."

He really just meant "really easy, fairly easy, moderate, nearly all out." He did put a table explaining the idea numerically in at least one of his books but neither he nor Barry Magee ever used the fractions when I worked with them.

Thankyou. I'm so glad you said this because it's the only logical explanation if you ground it down. I have been looking around and see a lot of opinions on this. I like the recovery descriptive of the paces as well but this % of maximal effort is definitely the place to explore.

Explore in a moment but first i wonder what you make of this explanation that came through to my question to yourself on another website:

It was in reply to this from me (part):

I guess the questions at the end are the ones i would be asking you next.

Again, I think Arthur had a general idea of what he meant when he used those fractions but he didn't really seem to have thought it out very specifically nor did I ever hear him give a clear explanation.

I think you can use the fractions in at least two ways. One is as you quote above, i.e., when one is running a time trial. A 29:00 time trial for someone capable of running 27:00 is certainly a pretty scaled down effort.

But he also used those fractions when assigning distance runs during the base phase (again, in his books, I never knew him to do that in real life,) and in that case you'd find that the "easy" efforts were actually pretty brutal.

If you want to use those effort tables for base running and want specific numbers I'd suggest using heart rates, percentages of your maximal aerobic heart rate, though Lydiard would have preferred going by feel.