Lydiard Imitations

I enjoyed that post.

I agree with you fully.

However, the problem is that we discussed differences between old (Lydiard) and new training metodology.

We use examples of success from different eras and with different metodology and periodization.

Then someone brought up doping.

My point is simply that when people use examples as arguments favoring a specific metodology. Then one should have some important factors in the back of the mind. One is professionalism, equipments, pacing and so on. However, sharing my own experience with medicines and doping, i would say that the factor of drugs can be major, if not by far the largest of external factors.

For example, when its brought up the training methodology of El Guerrouj or Rui Silva, I am not sure about anything.

I am not specific advocate of Lydiard training.

But in science it is common to use as building blocks what we know for sure.

My statement is that as an example Snell ran 1.44 in 1962 using Lydiard periodization. And I am so sure that it was not with drugs that I can use it as a fundament of my knowledge this kind of training can produce this performance (so its quite good training that i could recommend to your kids).

However when we speak about modern training, I am very very sceptical (because i have seen the extent of drugs and what they do).

Therefore i cannot compare directly Rui Silva training to Snell training with Lydiard.

So drugs are not separate from the discussion and are not only relevant if you want to start a drug regime. But instead are very important to keep in mind when discussing training from a empirical point of view (and training is so complec that it is still an empirical science).

when snell ran the 1.44 he strayed from lydiard principles. true.

HRE wrote:

Tom fits well into your original topic. He was a great "Lydiard imitator." His whole approach is a result of reading "Run to the Top" in 1964 or '65.

To return to the original theme of this thread ....

Richard ... it's this kind of comment that leads to so many attacks on the Lydiard "folllowers"

Tom Osler had already started to develop his running system BEFORE 1964/65 ....

see:

...

which clearly states that Osler began moving towards his "system" in the fall of 1963. Moreover, Henderson talks of Osler's "experience-based plan", & Osler talks of making the change in his "training experience" by "chance". Osler does refers to Lydiard BUT just ONCE in his 37 page "Conditioning of ...." booklet.

Moreover, Osler's method leaves out 3 key phases from Lydiard's periodised approach (hill phase, anaerobic intervals, & race co-ordination training) .... he uses just the first stage (base training) & the last stage (sharpening) ... Osler should receive due credit for his insight, not tagged as a mere Lydiard disciple.

I had the years wrong in that post. When I interviewed Tom for the "Marathon and Beyond" article I wrote about him he told me that his first "mentor" was Jack Barry, one of the better US marathoners of the late 50s. He had Tom doing intervals for about an hour a day.

"Then I read 'Run to the Top,'" Tom said, "and to me it justified the value of slow training." Itwas at that point that he switched around what he was doing and began taking long runs on the roads.

You are correct. He did not use all the elements of Lydiard's system which is why he qualifies as a Lydiard imitator.

But you are correct in saying that he was putting his sytem into place earlier than I'd written.

[quote]Alberto Contadoro wrote:

I am not specific advocate of Lydiard training.

But in science it is common to use as building blocks what we know for sure. ... My statement is that as an example Snell ran 1.44 in 1962 using Lydiard periodization. And I am so sure that it was not with drugs that I can use it as a fundament of my knowledge this kind of training can produce this performance (so its quite good training that i could recommend to your kids). ... However when we speak about modern training, I am very very sceptical (because i have seen the extent of drugs and what they do). ... Therefore i cannot compare directly Rui Silva training to Snell training with Lydiard.

Alberto,

I beg to differ ....

We can legitimately discuss training methodology WITHOUT reference to individual athletes .... we can look at the underlying principles, & develop understanding based on ...

* our own experiences (as athletes / coaches)

* scientific testing

* philosophical positions etc.

The modern methodology can be summarised as ....

* Develop all capabilities simultaneously / progressively

* Reference progression to extension of Race pace or volume of race pace training within a given period/phase

* Individualized approach based on individual differences of different athletes (e.g. muscle type)

We can debate this (in reference to other approaches) WITHOUT reference to Individual achievements.

For instance, you cite Peter Snell as a clean athlete who ran 1-44 using the Lydiard Methodology. I could cite, Seb Coe as a clean athlete who ran 1-41 using a VERY different methodology ..... I would NOT, however, wish to encourage youngsters to adopt the Coe methodology ... for I believe that for the great majority the intensity of the Coe method is too severe, & detrimental to performance & enjoyment of the sport.

HRE wrote:

I had the years wrong in that post. When I interviewed Tom for the "Marathon and Beyond" article I wrote about him he told me that his first "mentor" was Jack Barry, one of the better US marathoners of the late 50s. He had Tom doing intervals for about an hour a day.

"Then I read 'Run to the Top,'" Tom said, "and to me it justified the value of slow training." Itwas at that point that he switched around what he was doing and began taking long runs on the roads.

You are correct. He did not use all the elements of Lydiard's system which is why he qualifies as a Lydiard imitator.

But you are correct in saying that he was putting his sytem into place earlier than I'd written.

Richard

Thanks for the personal insight .....

There's no doubt whatsover that Lydiard had a clear INFLUENCE upon thousands through his books and his work with other coaches. ....

In terms of this discussion, however, I think we ought to use the classical Lydiard periodised approach for discussing methodological approaches.

Now, (based on this) an interesting aside ....

Lyiardists claim Pat Clohessy (coach to Deek & others) as a "Lydiard" coach .... however, in terms of methodology once could very easily argue that his "complex training" that includes all elements throughout the training period is nearer to the "modern methodology" than to the Classical Lydiard approach.

Alan.

Well I agree with you too. I understand what your are saying and why.I'm also dismissing any anecdotal "examples" of success to justify the method. We all know that even individuals following a well defined program, will often make significant deviations for many possible reasons. It's not my goal to declare one approach better than the other, but to dig a little more into the reasons behind selecting the different approaches, and to be aware of the benefits as well as the pitfalls, and to know their place in modern or ancient history.

Alberto Contadoro wrote:

I agree with you fully.

However, the problem is that we discussed differences between old (Lydiard) and new training metodology.

We use examples of success from different eras and with different metodology and periodization.

my go wrote:

If it doesn't work, why did Ramzi take it?

Ramzi did not have to take it, if he did.

The bigger question is why people get upset about what someone else is doing.

Your bigger question has an easy answer -- because cheating gives them an unfair advantage, and it robs honest athletes of their rightful victories and once in a lifetime award ceremony experience, not to mention their future compensations.

If someone is doing something that doesn't affect anyone else, I agree. I never understand threads here where people carry on, for example, about runenrs who wear minimalist shoes, or who don't wear minimalist shoes, or who only work part time so they can run as much as they want.

But I'd like to know who was really the best 1500 runner at the last Olympics as opposed to what good runner had the best pharmacists. I'd like to know whether it's really possible for a human to run a marathon in less than 2:05 and if so by how much. And I hate the idea of honest 1500 runners at the last Olympics not getting their due because someone in front of them cheated. If Ramzi wants to juice himself, hire some pacemakers, and have a go at running under 3:25 on his own, why not?

HRE wrote:

I'd like to know who was really the best 1500 runner at the last Olympics

Ramzi won the race, he was the best runner in the race.

I'd like to know whether it's really possible for a human to run a marathon in less than 2:05 and if so by how much.

Yes, by a minute or two, possibly more. Stay tuned.

And I hate the idea of honest 1500 runners at the last Olympics not getting their due because someone in front of them cheated.

Well then don't worry about it, unless you see a guy in a women's race, or a runner knocking someone else off the track.

If Ramzi wants to juice himself, hire some pacemakers, and have a go at running under 3:25 on his own, why not?

I think Ramzi ran as fast as he was able to run, regardless any drugs. He was not capable of running 3:25 and either is anyone else, so far anyway.

Do drugs improve performance? It depends on whether the physiological parameter they enhance is limiting performance AND whether the supporting physiological requirements are either in place or would themselves improve in response to enhancement of the rate-limiting parameter.

yes we can ! About aerobic resistance and specific resistance and aerobic condition Sebastian Coe training by his father did produce near the same INDEX/RATIO OF RESISTANCE that the Lydiard training on Peter Snell.

In fact Peter Snell with "just" 1:44 did 3:37 and 3:54:1 while Seb Coe being faster on 800m did 3;29.77 what means both got near the same index of resistance/endurance (index of resistance for middle distance 800m divided by 1500m (or mile).

Peter Snell 800m/1500m=48.49 and Seb Coe 800m/1500m=48.01 that are similar index for both.

But Rui did 1:44 but 3:30 and mile in 3:49.50

But Rui Silva is much better at every level of resistance and aerobic you want to consider. Rui that his 800m is very similar to Peter Snell (1:44 for Rui and 1:44.3 from Snell) BUT Rui did on 1500m closer to Seb Coe (3:30 for Rui and 3:29.77 for Coe) which means Rui index 800m/1500m is 49.65 much better than anyone of both Peter and Coe

And if we go to longer distances, the events that require best aerobic condition that Snell can´t be relate because he didn´t got interest in long distances, but with just 1:44 Rui did 7:46 and Coe just 7:57,4.

Just form the record Rui Silva is a 1:44, 3:30, 3:49, 7:46 BUT ALSO 13:19 and 27:53.

This shows without no doubt that Rui got the best training method from the point of view of the aerobic condition from all the three. Rui with a poor VO2max was able to run the last lap of the 2004 olympics faster than everyone, including El Gerrouj the winner and Bernard Lagat. This proves that for middle distance events (800-1500-mile) the aerobic condition it´s not as determinant and aerobic first just poor training, but aerobic shall be combined with faster pace training as Rui did.

Of course that i don´t deny the great champion that Peter Snell was and others runners they were (they are) but from the methodology training perspective linear training and aerobic first is poor training.

Hi Antonio:

I was just wondering, what is Rui Silva's VO2 Max? Also, in another post, you mentioned that his test results (VO2 and LT, I think, maybe even economy) right after a big competition (Olympics, I think) were his worst test results for the entire season! Would you be able to share those test results?

In addition, do you believe Rui Silva can have success at 5000 and 10000? Thanks.

I understand that you don't have the same questions or concerns that I do and that doesn't bother me. It is annoying when you give orders. I will believe it is humanly possible to run marathons under 2:05 or so when I'm convinced the sport has eliminated drugs as a reasonable explanation as to why some have done so. And I will not believe that Ramzi was the best runner in the last Olympic 1500 because I am not convinced he'd have won it without drugs.

And now I'll turn things around and tell you to stop telling me what to think about or worry about.

HRE wrote:

It is annoying when you give orders.

What orders have I given? If I was in charge, I would disband all the corrupt doping agencies, and make it legal to take drugs. This would get rid of the market for them.

I will believe it is humanly possible to run marathons under 2:05 or so when I'm convinced the sport has eliminated drugs as a reasonable explanation as to why some have done so.

So, the people who've bettered 2:05 have not been human?

Again my question, why did P Radcliff run 2:15 for the marathon? Was that due to drugs? A performance like that for a woman is better than 2:03 for a man. Still no one has answered this question.

I was just looking over the 29 page pdf entitled "Arthur Lydiard's Athletic Training" put together by Nobby H. and Steve Bobenhouse. In the anaerobic speed development section beginning on page 12, I read (in part) "Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you use repetitions or interval training...you don't even need to time them, as long as you come off the track or from your training quite fatigued...i.e. 12 x 400 meters, 6 x 600 meters, 5 x 1000 meters, or 3 x 1 mile with a recovery jog of an equal distance in between." Here is a link:

http://www.runbayou.com/ArthurLydiard.pdf

A few questions for HRE or Nobby or any Lydiard expert:

1) Is that accurate that Lydiard saw the training effect of 12 x 400 and 3 x 1 mile as equivalent and anaerobic as long as you finished the session quite fatigued? How about (say for a 3:45 1500 guy) 12 x 400 in 60 with 400 jog in 2 minutes vs. 12 x 400 in 57 with a 400 jog in 3 minutes? Equivalent training effect as long as you get tired?

2) When Lydiard says "repetitions or intervals" is he making a distinction between them or are they the same to him?

Thanks for helping me to understand the Lydiard system.

It would be much more relevant to compare Rui Silva with Rod Dixon (who trained using "aerobic first" principles) as both were initially middle distance runners who competed over a range of distances and both moved up in distances over their careers. In contrast, Snell and Coe remained middle distance specialists throughout their careers.