Lydiard Imitations

Ok finally I have decided to point out where Antonio says things about training that is straight out of the book of Arthur Lydiard, despite his sarcastic posturing to indicate otherwise. If you want to read the full interview I have linked it above. I will add that when we did the interview, Cabral was almost a different person. Polite, thoughtful and considerate. In this thread, we have surly, sarcastic and either a lying or mistaken person...Jekyll & Hyde.

I will add "comment" within this post...

Part of intro:

Magness adds, “Igloi manipulated the intervals to create both aerobic and anaerobic adaptations. The basis of the system is running by feel and progression”.

The latter comment is a very Lydiard-like approach, ala, “knowing thyself” or as 4-time Olympian Lorraine Moller recently wrote in an issue of Running Times Magazine, “Becoming a Body Whisperer”. As Moller wrote, “The Principle of feeling-based running, one of the five principles that define Lydiard training…”

AC: I have one structure of organizing the training periodization, but I take every runner as one individual case. I have my training method and principles, but I´m very flexible and pragmatic. I can´t have one fixed periodization formula that fits every runner or every kind of distance event.

Comment: The above statement is very similar to Lydiard in that he coached individuals - not having anyone follow a schedule blindly or carte blanche.

Every new cycle might be different than the past ones. For example, one runner comes to me with some experience but I see he missed interval training. Probably I advise him to start with interval training sessions immediately. With another runner I see he was following low mileage training and he has a poor aerobic condition. Immediately I introduce him to rich aerobic runs, more mileage training than what we was doing.

Comment: There are examples of where Lydiard looked at a runner's recent past and put him directly into intervals. Also the opposite is true, just as Cabral says.

My training periodization process goes in frequency of crescendo (gradual increase) from Generic to Special stimulus to Specific stimulus.

By generic stimulus what I mean is the exercise activity is related to running event, but quite distant in specificity.

CK: What do you mean by ‘special’?

AC: By special I mean the kind of effort that is closer to the race pace event and by specific one, the kind of stimulus that is highly connected with the race event in two aspects: the race pace and distance/duration of the event, very close to race pace.

Comment: Reads like the final Lydiard phase, the coordination phase....

When he decides to progress from 12X1000m at 90% of 10k race pace to 3X2000m race pace it´s the moment that he also does the 5X1200m 100% of 10k race pace as I told you above. From 30min/tempo to 12X1000m to 3X2000m, every workout progresses from quantity to quality.

Comment: Specifics aside, nothing new under the sun, here.

The Aerobic Foundation

Finally, two important aspects of my training periodization approach:

The aerobics is the important one of the basic training variables, and it´s why it can never be neglected and shall be trained in every phase of the training periodization.

Comment: Exactly something Lydiard would say.

On the other side of the training need, the specific training is at the top of the interest as a training variable, and can be included when seems effective.

Comment: Like a pyramid?

However, most of the training that you ask me about is in the second level of interest related to my essential training. As I stated, since the middle and long distance training is mostly aerobic and the important one factor is resistance, then richest training approach is done by aerobic mileage volume quantity and specific workout quality. When I describe my training I try to figure out the main structure, not the details. If I figure out the intricate details, something important is lost from the message.

Comment: Just simple logic. Aerobic is important, principles are the same....yada yada...

Despite the distance training approach it shall be multi-lateral zone of efforts and not fragmented, but also needs to be minimalist, selective and discriminatory. Despite what you wanted, it´s quite impossible to train all training zones during one short period, therefore we need to select among all training variants in what´s most crucial to the training improvements.

Comment: This above statement is totally contrary to what is written throughout the Lydiard threads by Cabral...but is very Lydiard like...

CK: What is your opinion on the Igloi method?

AC: I´m very surprised how people don´t understand Igloi training. I don´t want to be arrogant, or say that I know everything about the training method, but Igloi is very easy to understand. The problem is that to understand Igloi, you need to go back (somehow) and learn about 2 types of training that are similar and one is influenced by the other: one is Zatopec training, the other is Freiburg Gersheler and Reindell training. Freiburg is the German city where Waldemar Gersheler and Carl Reindell did most of his interval training method. Aactually it´s named Freiburg Interval Training.

Comment: Funny. Go read that Keith Livingstone interview...http://athleticsillustrated.com/interviews/keith-livingstone/

Firstly, good post from wetcoast highlighting Antonio's hypocrisy.

Looking at this 'trash' article we see how the author highlights the three main criticisms of Lydiardism. Lets look at them.

1. Many coaches and athletes with experience of such systems believe that the sudden introduction of high-intensity running after a strictly low-intensity base phase carries a high risk of injury. I would say coaches with experience in this system that run into this particular problem are simply not experienced enough. There is no sudden change of pace at all. High speed running has been maintained throughout the year, timetrials have been run throughout the year, and the progression into faster paces is quite gradual.

A.steady state

first there is development of steady state running

second there is development of fast steady state running

B. alternating states

third there is the introduction of hills into the fast steady state running, this creates the first modulation. It also allows for the start of dealing with anaerobic/lactate. In fact the fist time the athlete would experience lactate is when they are attempting to maintain pace up a hill. There should be a 'slight' surge of lactate during each hill.

fourth is entry into the hill phase which is really about adding strength to the already developed endurance to enable strength-endurance to be gained. Interestingly the hill phase is not just about going up. In Lydiard's hill circuits he also has a downhill section, designed to be run fast. If i remember correctly it was Snell who used to run 880y downhill faster than world record pace in this phase.

2. A second criticism of linear periodization systems is that the various important aspects of running fitness are not developed “harmoniously”. Why devote several weeks to developing strength only to let this attribute slide again by replacing strength workouts with speed work?

---I don't know what he means by harmonious but i think he is just taking someone elses criticism for his own with this statement. The criticism he actually raises is due to the perceived loss of condition of previously trained components as we move forward. But this again is simply a misunderstanding. Aerobic conditioning is maintained throughout subsequent phases. Hill work is still done right into the sharpening phase. Anaerobic training only needs to be extendable for 3 months into the peak of the season and is easily maintainable if underlying condition is sufficient. Through well crafted maintenance training very little needs to be lost as we move forward.

3. Finally, linear periodization systems are also criticized for requiring months of buildup for a rather brief opportunity to race at the very end.

---This is just strange to me as someone who had a good 3-4 months riding my peak after a solid 8-9 months of preparation. The peak duration is strongly related to the duration of preparation. Prepare short then you will have a short season and vice versa.

I suppose that ultimately my point was simply that I was greatly irritated by a number of things.

I'd appreciate it if the same old tired and possibly not all that well-informed argument that "the Finns this/that" wasn't used as as a striking weapon in the great debate between "Lydiardists" and "Modernists". I'd also be very happy that when people (including you - and I expected better from you) talked about "the Finns" and their training, they would not accept any less from themselves than they do when they talk about things they do know well and deeply.

I only made one such question - and I was hoping that even if it was a stupid question, it would be stupid in a way that would open up the dialogue rather than stupid in a way that closes it.

In other words, I expected you to for instance tell us what you know about Haikkola's method and whether you think it is essentially "Lydiardian" or not.

(But instead your unwritten answer seems to have been something like: "I know very little about it and I don't care if what I know about is is quite superficial or inaccurate and in any case I am not interested because it is "Lydiardian" and it is "Lydiardian" because the "Lydiardists" say so" - and maybe also "Therefore, when somewhere writes that "the Finns" used blood doping and that Virén has confessed and Haikkola admitted it, it must be true and it is my right to stop thinking beyond that and I can make the kind of statements that would piss me off if someone made them about, say, "the Portuguese"...)

My apology: That comment had nothing to do with you or the argument I had with you. I shouldn't have been so lazy and I should have made that reply to "Wetcoast" in a separate post.

But anyway: you are probably right in that our dialogue doesn't have much of a chance in going anywhere.

No hard feelings. If there will be a next time in Portugal, I'll bring you a signed copy of Haikkola's book. You won't have to study Finnish - it's a handsome volume of 447 pages and it will look good on your bookshelf!

Alan Bennet wrote:

Antonio Cabral wrote:

... But Rui Silva is much better [than Peter Snell and Seb Coe] at every level of resistance and aerobic you want to consider. ... 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. ...

I still have doubts. I am not sure that your INDEX/RATIO OF RESISTANCE tells the whole story. Please tell me, because I really don't know the answer to this: Is running economy race specific?

What i do for you if you have doubts. Doubt about what, mathematics ?

The rule of time and space relate to run effort says as far as the distance (or time duration) increase the pace (the speed) decrease.

Resistance is the ability to length/delay/sustain your best/fast pace over a distance or a time duration.

The INDIVIDUAL ratio of resistance is just to relate 2 different distance events as see what´s the pace decrease from one short run to another long run.

It´s possible to relate the index of resistance from 2 or more runners. Of course that sometimes that needs to be see with care - since the same runner didn´t the same training or competitive investment from the 2 events of consideration, and also sometimes one l pb is an outstand performance , unique performances, and it´s why it´s a pb - just done once in a lifetime. Well in some rare cases the runners repeats his own pb. the opposite also happens, a runner that for some individual reason couldn´t done well over a distance as his potential.

The index of resistance also works better while calcul to different distances from the same physiologic pattern, in fact 2 closer distance events, like are the pairs 100m-200m, the 200m-400m the 400m-800m, the 800m-1500m, the 5000m-10000m, the 10000m-HM, and the HM-marathon. if we use only the olympic events

However, as you might know, the use of statistics calcul (calculation) over a great universe (like done the index of resistance on hundreds or thousand of runners over the same 2 events) and we can define a poor, average, or optimal parameter of index of resistance.

At a prime analysis - the objective analysis of time and space - it really doesn´t matter what are the physiologic variables in presence, if the major contributive system is aerobic, anaerobic, lactate threshold, biomechanics, or PACE ECONOMY.

What the index of resistance teach is it´s what´s the resistance of every runner relate to same 2 events.

The index of resistance is a technical tool of analysis at the disposal of the coach and other run expert and it´s very efficient as TRAINING APPROACH.

Mr, John Hadd, used to do the same kind of analysis and he took technical conclusions from something different but based on the same resistance principle. He used to take from the "table of athletic performances (used on decathlon)" and relate both distances. But i prefer to deal with real performance chronos rather than points from one table that´s not so accurate.

OF COURSE, in THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THE MIDDLE TO LONG DISTANCE EVENTS (from 800m to marathon) as science physiology teaches that as short as the distance the higher and interesting is the anaerobic system (anaerobic lactic), and the longer is the event the more important is the aerobic lactic system, then we might see the weak and the strong systems of each runner, and we can INTERPRET how efficient or effective the training of one runner is (was) done and future training change (modulation) eventually.

As we did focus our debate on Lydiard training relate to aerobic first and linear versus non-linear periodisation, and one of the thesis of the Lydiardists is that the Lydiard training produces some high aerobic condition, i did focus my index of resistance analysis relate to this Lydiard thesis.

To debate the influence of pace economy in the distance performance it´s something for exercise physiologists and they don´t agree one with each other most of the times. Therefore i prefer date from real facts, runs, real situations, that generate real figures, numbers, race results, objective time and space results, it´s primary but never denied date.

However if you want to relate to pace economy, or mileage, or aerobic threshold, go ahead.

Antonio,You do yourself a great disservice when you speak about things you don't know. Did you even read this "trash article" beyond the introduction? (Recall before how your Pete Pfitzinger conclusions were completely contradicted -- if you read the article). I've read a great deal from Matt Fitzgerald, and never in the course of reading anything from him, did I get the slightest indication that he is some secret "affiliate to Lydiardism". In fact, he even says in the article you quote that he never tried the Lydiard method: "One option is to switch over to a Lydiardian plan, something I have never really tried."Matt Fitzgerald has written a number of books about a wide variety of running topics such as "Brain Training" (a practical approach to some ideas coming from Noakes Central Governor Model), proper nutrition for runners to achieve an ideal racing weight, benefits of dynamic stretching over static stretching, using proprioceptive cues to improve running technique neuromuscular efficiency, and his opinions and experiences regarding barefoot running (something he advised to approach with a great deal of caution) and minimalist shoes (something he recommended, if you could get away with it). All of these diverse topics are complementary to any debate about specific training methodologies.Most everything he writes about comes from his own practical personal experience and experimentation, or from his areas of expertise. Many of his ideas are backed up with references to recent studies. That is, he reads the studies, and then experiments with some practical approaches and gives his readers practical guidelines to what he found that actually worked for him. I think this is exactly the kind of "independent thinking" you repeatedly ask everyone to strive for. I have not ready one single thing from Matt Fitzgerald that wanders into the area of training methodologies, such that one could reasonably conclude that he is a biased journalist with a Lydiard agenda. Have you?Even this link, once you start reading beyond the introduction, does a very good job of illustrating for everyone the main differences between the linear approach versus a non-linear approach, and the major benefits and criticisms, of each approach. In one short article, Fitzgerald succeeded to concisely describe the debate in a way that took you 4 years. And his conclusions: "I don’t believe that either linear periodization systems ... are clearly better for every athlete." Right or wrong, he is clearly not biased towards a Lydiard-like linear approach, something he has "never really tried".

Antonio Cabral wrote:

The man that thinks that "the most influential theorist in the history of run training was Arthur Lydiard", the man that wrote this trash article is another independent coach, not affiliate to Lydiardism.

http://www.peaksware.com/articles/running/linear-vs-non-linear-periodization-in-running.aspx

Linear vs Non-Linear Periodization in Running

By Matt Fitzgerald

The most influential theorist in the history of run training was Arthur Lydiard. (...)

Your questions are too easy.Paula ran 2:15 due to a combination of natural talent, training, mental strength, not to mention a fast course and good weather conditions.It was not due to any banned drugs, and not due to male pace makers.Similarly, there is no reason to suspect that any sub 2:05 marathons were unnaturally aided by banned substances or practices, and several reasons to doubt it. Geb showed the way, and eliminated mental barriers similar to Banister's 4:00 mile.Now someone has answer this question.

J.R. wrote:

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.

Wetcoast,

Why do you link Antonio's methods to Igloi? When and where was that connection established? What did he take from Igloi? Did Igloi talk about extensive, intensive, progressive, specificity and space and time the way Antonio does?

If you ask me what i think about the training of the Finns of the 70s and mid 80s, i try to resume what i think while relate with Lydiard method.

I guess that the training of the Finns of that golden 70s is better than Lydiard typical. Haikkola training is a revised version of Lydiard, and i want to try what is different from Lydiard.

First the mileage. In same cases more than 100miles. Second 3 different paces of daily runs well defined. Third, no use of the kind of long runs in some cases. The use of hills is quite different than the Lydiard hills.

Also the season periodisation and the competition schedule is different. I remember that Pekka Paivarinta did race very often even during the winter season. Remember that Pavarinta did focus on the summer track season, but also did compete with serious intentions during the winter season. Remember that he was been the first World Cross country winner and some weeks distant he was european 3000m indoor winner (second place ?).

He did compete hard during the winter season, on cross runs and also the famous Finn relays, a classic from the Finns.

So, i´m from Haikkola that´s logical sequence of the classic/typical Lydiard training. Influenced by Lydiard but much better than Lydiard in my opinion.

However as i said earlier, we have good finn runners from that same period that didn´t accept the Lydiard training, one of them is Juha Vaatainen i knew personally in Algarve (south of Portugal) in 72 training and i also took some beers with him in Lisbon May 74, when he tried a new comeback that didn´t happen really. One day he invited me to dinner with him and he took me to his hotel room. He opens the closet and there were hundreds of produts that the closet did seem more a pharmacy than a closet of an hotel room.

Resume: Haikkola training as well as others are influenced by Lydiard but were able to break some Lydiard weak and dogmatic training, and it´s why is better than Lydiard.

The story of the presence of Lydiard in Finland, and to what extend he is responsible for the progress of the Finn distance run after he´s gone it´s something not well determined, and of course it´s shadowed by the use of self-blood transfusion, the way we willn´t know what is result of that blood practice or what is the product of just rich training method, or both. I guess it´s both because if you take drugs or self transfusion but you don´t train properly you willn´t run fast for sure.

Wrong again. I read the article and while read i understood that what he say about Pete Pfitzinger it´s that Pete does different periodisation kind than Lydiard.

I read the article from the first word to the last word, by one missionary reason, to be sure i didn´t understood wrongly that Lydiard is the most influential...", just to see how Matt Fitzgerald will progress the absurd and stupid and ignorant first sentence of the article that says ""the most influential theorist in the history of run training was Arthur Lydiard".

After read it all, just to see how many more stupidity he says, i did discover the the other coach that he names that did contribute to the history of run

it´s Pete Pfitzinger. No one else he mentions. This is total ignorance and quite obscurantism. Obscurantism it´s to catch some facts to take up some others.

Then i suggest that he changes the first sentence to Lydiard and Pete Pfitzinger the 2 most influential theorists in the history of run training.

Independent and lots of knowledge and understand about the history of training, this mr. Matt. The problem is that the books from he wrotes distance training history misses some 280 pages from the original 300, and by change one page is about Lydiard and the other about Pete Pfitzinger.

Independent training anyhow.

He also mentioned Martin and Coe.

He only mentioned Pfitzinger specifically, not because of his place in history, but because that was his actual personal experience -- he followed a program based on Pfitzinger. And earlier in this same thread, you concluded that Pfitzinger was also like Lydiard (unless I missed another irony).

Matt isn't giving a history lesson, but using popular names that most "Training Peaks" readers might identify with as examples of two different periodization approaches. If he had used Matviev, and Gerschler, very few could identify with the periodization approaches.

The history lesson and the names are of secondary importance -- the primary importance of the article itself is presenting the debate about linear versus non-linear periodization.

wetcoast. Sorry, i did miss one little detail on that interview, but you are the responsible because you don´t wanted that i said nothing about the Lydiard subject.

Didn´t no one told you yet that i´m a Lydiardist ? Go on and search on the files, i did sign for the Lydiard Foundation few years ago, but it´s all in secret.

I can´t be more specific because i´m on the secret department and i got the diploma. The test was about "how to be a catch Lydiard coach" and o got an A.

Yes Martin and Coe. But once again, i understand what he want to say

I respect your opinion about the article and the work of Matt.

However, if we live in democracy and we can express our opinion, i read and debate about training methodology some 40 years now. i did read thousand of books and articles about training, but sorry to insist. In my opinion, someone that is supposed to know something about distance training methodology and the first sentence of the article is this one, i don´t give no credit about training history. There i want to be impartial and independent, might be he did write very correct things about Brain training whatever.

I also got diffrent opinion than you do. I guess that he needs to mention Matveiev and the others, and avoid ignorance and the lie that´s Lydiard be the "important one theorist of run history...". Articles of opinion or teach or information or it´s not to keep people in ignorance or low-knowledge, and worst, to make incorrect statements.

Once again i need to say, I mention the name and the site address just that you will be able to identify what i say, and each one is adult to judge, but Mr. Matt the individual it´s not in cause, but just their ideas.

Antonio Cabral wrote:Resistance is the ability to length/delay/sustain your best/fast pace over a distance or a time duration.

This resistance caper has had me a little stumped for a while. I can't help but think of resistance as something which we work against. Like the resistance in the gym is described by its weight. Resistance in water is another form of this. For a runner i think of their resistance as their bodyweight. Then we get RESISTANCE in capital letters as described here. I don't get it. Where is the resistance in that description? It sounds like this is describing average pace. The ability to hold your best pace for the length of a race or a run.

The INDIVIDUAL ratio of resistance is just to relate 2 different distance events as see what´s the pace decrease from one short run to another long run.

It´s possible to relate the index of resistance from 2 or more runners. Of course that sometimes that needs to be see with care - since the same runner didn´t the same training or competitive investment from the 2 events of consideration, and also sometimes one l pb is an outstand performance , unique performances, and it´s why it´s a pb - just done once in a lifetime. Well in some rare cases the runners repeats his own pb. the opposite also happens, a runner that for some individual reason couldn´t done well over a distance as his potential.

The index of resistance also works better while calcul to different distances from the same physiologic pattern, in fact 2 closer distance events, like are the pairs 100m-200m, the 200m-400m the 400m-800m, the 800m-1500m, the 5000m-10000m, the 10000m-HM, and the HM-marathon. if we use only the olympic events

However, as you might know, the use of statistics calcul (calculation) over a great universe (like done the index of resistance on hundreds or thousand of runners over the same 2 events) and we can define a poor, average, or optimal parameter of index of resistance.

At a prime analysis - the objective analysis of time and space - it really doesn´t matter what are the physiologic variables in presence, if the major contributive system is aerobic, anaerobic, lactate threshold, biomechanics, or PACE ECONOMY.

What the index of resistance teach is it´s what´s the resistance of every runner relate to same 2 events.

The index of resistance is a technical tool of analysis at the disposal of the coach and other run expert and it´s very efficient as TRAINING APPROACH.

Mr, John Hadd, used to do the same kind of analysis and he took technical conclusions from something different but based on the same resistance principle. He used to take from the "table of athletic performances (used on decathlon)" and relate both distances. But i prefer to deal with real performance chronos rather than points from one table that´s not so accurate.

OF COURSE, in THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THE MIDDLE TO LONG DISTANCE EVENTS (from 800m to marathon) as science physiology teaches that as short as the distance the higher and interesting is the anaerobic system (anaerobic lactic), and the longer is the event the more important is the aerobic lactic system, then we might see the weak and the strong systems of each runner, and we can INTERPRET how efficient or effective the training of one runner is (was) done and future training change (modulation) eventually.

As we did focus our debate on Lydiard training relate to aerobic first and linear versus non-linear periodisation, and one of the thesis of the Lydiardists is that the Lydiard training produces some high aerobic condition, i did focus my index of resistance analysis relate to this Lydiard thesis.

To debate the influence of pace economy in the distance performance it´s something for exercise physiologists and they don´t agree one with each other most of the times. Therefore i prefer date from real facts, runs, real situations, that generate real figures, numbers, race results, objective time and space results, it´s primary but never denied date.

However if you want to relate to pace economy, or mileage, or aerobic threshold, go ahead.[/quote]

gypsy wrote:

This resistance caper has had me a little stumped for a while. I can't help but think of resistance as something which we work against. Like the resistance in the gym is described by its weight. Resistance in water is another form of this. For a runner i think of their resistance as their bodyweight. Then we get RESISTANCE in capital letters as described here. I don't get it. Where is the resistance in that description? It sounds like this is describing average pace. The ability to hold your best pace for the length of a race or a run.

The problem (if it must be a problem) here is one of linquistics. Seemingly similar words in different languages can have slightly different connotations and even entirely different meanings. To give you an example: I remember how puzzled I was when Renato wrote about "integrators" - until it dawned upon me that he meant "supplements" which for reasons beyond me are called "integratori" in Italian.

"Resistenza" (or "resistência") is almost certainly not exactly the same thing as "resistance", but if it is such a stumbling block for you, try to forget the English word and its meanings. Replace it with "endurance" or "stamina" and see if it help you to grasp the concept or to drop unnecessary objections to it.

That is a genuine true life story! Väätäinen was (and still is) a man of extremes and headstrong opinions), but even to this day Finnish runners - when the results (with a few exceptions) are such that no one bothers to suggest doping of any kind - are said to pass more expensive urine than any other runners in the world...

A fair enough assessment to which I have nothing to add.

No need to be snarky nor assign 'unnecessary' to my objections. I don't know if the problem is linguistics. Resistance and resistência appear to mean the same thing. It may appear as semantics but for me, coming from a feel perspective, the 'feel' of what a word represents is important. Most words have some onomatopeic base, such as the word resistance. You can feel the ressssissssstancccce as you say it. So i'm wondering where the resistance is and stamina/endurance doesn't cover it.

If i look into the terminology itself we come across extension, which appears to be what is happening when resistance is being applied. As we extend duration further at the same speed resistance increases. I can imagine this. ON a continuous long run, the further you go, the greater the feeling of resistance i have to continuing. And it's not just mental. There is a definite physical underpinning to this feeling of resistance. Overcoming it with the mind is the trick is it not? The trick to being elite is not much more than this. Maybe a certain degree of talent is required. Probably good information is also required, which usually comes through a coach. But the mindset, to keep pushing beyond and never giving up, this is the essence behind this word 'elite' i believe.

Anyway, a digression but an interesting one i think. One that not a lot of people might have some perspective on. So really this idea of extension to me is a mind trick. Like Ron Clarke explained when he was in the 'pain' he wouldnt agree this was the last lap he pushed it. But at the end of each lap he made a new deal with himself. Mind trick or superior endurance talent?

* he would{/i} agree it was the last lap he would push it.

Like Hilversum said, the "index of resistance" in this sense is more like a measure of endurance or stamina. Maybe the best way to think about it is how much we can resist slowing down as the distances get longer.

When Antonio says "index of resistance", he is comparing short race times with longer race times (mathematically dividing one by the other) to see how much we slow down. If we slow down a lot, that means poor aerobic condition. If we slow down a little, that means a great aerobic condition (and maybe poor speed).

Horwill used a 4 second rule to show something similar, and Hadd, in the long thread talked about loose relationships versus tight relationship of race times.

rekrunner wrote:

Like Hilversum said, the "index of resistance" in this sense is more like a measure of endurance or stamina. Maybe the best way to think about it is how much we can resist slowing down as the distances get longer.

When Antonio says "index of resistance", he is comparing short race times with longer race times (mathematically dividing one by the other) to see how much we slow down. If we slow down a lot, that means poor aerobic condition. If we slow down a little, that means a great aerobic condition (and maybe poor speed).

Horwill used a 4 second rule to show something similar, and Hadd, in the long thread talked about loose relationships versus tight relationship of race times.

Ok so we have 'our' resistance to slowing down as duration increases, as opposed to some resistance in the 'session' itself. This is different, but both still differ from the idea of overcoming our own resistance to continuing. If the resistance is in us and not within the session, then is it overcoming our own resistance, or is it applying our own resistance to prevent slowing down. I like the positive spin version better i think.

ps by the way did you used to go under the alias trackhead?