Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

What you say about new sources of Lydiard, we did comment that in the past already.

Some people tends to interpret Lydiard by private conversation with Lydiard, direct support from Lydiard, individual Lydiard schedules that he did, so and so.

That kind of source it might be it helps the intervenient, but all that kind of outsource material can´t represent the big umbrella of Lydiard training for one public discuss about Lydiard train. Since can´t be public, or despite it´s edit or published, and despite that a new private insight can reveal a new vision of the Lydiard training, that is just transversal data, and hardly might change the Lydiard main training that the public opinion, or the experts, they know.

The Lydiard main training methodology is very detailed in all that Lydiard from the author source, and so many material it´s enough to exposure and comment.

I was been in the IPC World Athletics Championships 2011 that took place 21-30 January in Christchurch. I´ve seen the effect of the early past year earthquake, the one 6 months before this last one. At Christchurch they told me that Christchurch does one sweet earthquaque each 14 seconds.

During my stay did happens a 5.1 but with no devastated effect. I saw that Lydiard is very considered on Christchurch and i´m happy for that fact. I keep on my own opinion that i respect Lydiard the Man what some say it´s hypocrisy, but it doesn´t matter me at all. My fight and my battle is against the coach methodology, not the man neither the coach.

Kim told me about Brian. Very sad. I gave Nobby a copy of "Where Have All the Runners Gone?" It's one of the best articles I've read in recent years.

"fondamentalist" made me laugh.

Barbara Ann wrote:

Wow ! Love the deliberate spelling mistakes !!!!.

Yes. We've been everywhere but forward, or specific.Given your concession that Lydiard himself updated his own training method, at least until the 1990's, can you name 5 top coaches today, identifying and contrasting different training aspects that characterize their training method, versus top training methods before 1990?You want to fight a battle against an outdated coaching methodology, at some point you need to use your weapons.

khadaffi on power wrote:

What you say about new sources of Lydiard, we did comment that in the past already.

Cracker Mate !!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

About Mr. Hyde:

- I'm sure it's not Antonio.

So you keep saying over and over. I think you need to read some of Antonio's old posts and see that the writing style and content is exactly the same.

As do you. But I don't like playing the name game, for fear of coming across as pompous or foolish. I understand a thing or two about authentication mechanisms, and the way this forum is setup, it's impossible to reliably authenticate anyone, without help from site administrators, so I wonder why anyone even bothers to take the risk.I did read a lot of Antonio's old posts including the Lydiard vs. Daniels thread, the permanent Renato Canova Lactate Threshold thread, an "Intermittent Training" thread, and the more recent "2 kinds of runners thread".While I can see similarities, in style, and opinions, I also see as early as 2005, Antonio delivering real substance and data to help make points:- He presented exhaustive data comparing 16 top class runners with 16 national class runners to make a point about "LT training".- He pointed to an Ingrid Kristiansen website to help defend his comments about 45 minute runs.- He gave a comprehensive historical overview and in-depth look at the different kinds of intermittent training, and the concepts behind them. That thread alone helps me understand criticism about different approaches to interval training, and why I often recommend it.- He shared an open discussion with Hadd (a very Lydiard-like advocate of high mileage aerobic development) to show that some runners respond better to other kinds of training, giving real life training histories of two opposite athletes with some similar performances.For me, it's night and day. I see a black hole of supporting evidence and no links to real experiences coming from Mr. Hyde. He's making the claims that Lydiard methodology is outdated. At least he must know what he means by it. He doesn't get credit for evidence he keeps to himself. He just declared he doesn't want to give us any data. It's too hard to transmit his decades of knowledge into short posts. He doesn't even want to start this game, for fear that I will come back with never-ending questions due to an un-satiable appetite for his extensive knowledge. He fears it's a never-ending story, while I fear it's a never-starting story.Look at this thread. I asked for a good book, and after spinning in circles until I'm dizzy, all I got were books he didn't like. I already knew he didn't like Lydiard books. He just said he had dozens of good books, but refuses to give me the name of even one. Was Antonio ever this evasive? Before 2005?I don't understand why an older, wiser, Antonio, who has already provided lots of content, substance, and data, would regress to a caricature of himself, and refuse to even simply repost, or link to, data he has already provided as far back as 2005.But I repeat -- I don't want to play the name game. I don't care if it really is Antonio and he is really schizophrenic. Especially if the posts with content are marked with his real name, it makes determination much easier. As I said, the "name" box is too easily forged, so I look for comprehension and cohesion and supporting data in the "message" box.

J.O. wrote:

So you keep saying over and over. I think you need to read some of Antonio's old posts and see that the writing style and content is exactly the same.

khadaffi on power,

I'd like to thank you for making something clear for me. I'm a big Lydiard fan and, living in MN, I've had a chance to attend some of Nobby's clinics before as well as Mr. Lydiard's last clinic in 1999 or 2000. While it still makes sense, reading through what you had to say, I was starting to believe that Lydiardites were missing something, that we really need to move on and seek some new methodologies. Until I read your last few comments. You claimed that you have no problem with Mr. Lydiard himself because he was always learning and changing his method himself but Lydiardites are sticking to the old thinking. Well, I have heard/read Nobby speak of some of Mr. Lydiard's thinking as incorrect in the lights of more current methodologies/situations. For one, he was kind enough to send me one of the scripts that he said he was going to post at Lydiard Foundation's website. In it, Mr. Lydiard talked about high altitude training and said it is better to train at sea level and high altitude training doesn't have any positive effect. But Nobby had a footnote there saying that Mr. Lydiard never had a chance to experiment with altitude training and it is wrong of him to say that it is not effective. Reading through some of your last posts, it really dawned on me that you probably have no idea what Nobby and other Lydiardites are doing and you probably haven't even read their posts or, as you claim others should do about Dr. Li's training or Renato Canova's lecture-that they should fly a half way across the globe to attend their clinic and seminar instead of you pointing out some of the specifics, that you youself don't even understand what Lydiardites are trying to do and you are simply criticising them for the sake of criticising them. That, to me, is nothing but being hypocritical. Perhaps you should actually join Lydiard Foundation or take their certificate clinic to learn a thing or two about what they are doing before throwing a Holy war against them. You claim a crusade against Lydiardites, not the Man. But the truth is you have nothing but a pity personal resentment. Your reasons for this "attack" seem to change all the time anyway. I don't know and I don't care if you are Antonio Cabral or some bogus European coach or whatever, to be a level of coach or official to travel all the way to New Zealand for athletic competition, I regret you being such a jerk and completely rude toward fellow "students of the sport". You, sir, is nothing but a rude hypocritical jerk.

One final note: I know you are always so bent out of shape about Lydiard lacing. A few years back, I had a chance to actually sat next Nobby at one of U of MN's indoor competitions. I looked down and he was wearing, I forgot what exactly they were, I think they were Asics Kinetic or Kayano and he wasn't doing Lydiard lacing so I pointed that out to him. "It doesn't feel right with these shoes" he said. I actually went to one of his clinics where he talked about shoe lacing but he did mention that with a lot of today's shoes with very thin and light materials, this lacing may not work. You make such a big deal about this lacing when the truth is that Nobby doesn't even necessarily recommend it that strongly.

You bring up this "Crusade", using terms like fight or battle, but you don't even know what you are fighting against and, as rekrunner had pointed out, you don't even know what your own weapons are and, if you actually do have them, you don't even use them but just keep them in the garage and tell everybody that you have this lethal weapon. You tell Lydiardites to go study new training methodologies. But you don't even study your own enemy to understand if they are enemy or not. If that's not hypocrite, I don't know what is. So reading through your "battle" actually made me decide to stick with Lydiard. It also made me realize that it really is not all those numbers of individual workout that separates what Lydiard and what is not; but it is the principles and when it comes down to it, Li or Daniel or Canova are not all that different from Lydiard at all. At least none of them appears to be as rude and jerky as you are. So thank you!!

Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate. I´mm a jerk really, but why do you spend your time to address me ? I know, it´s because in your deep mind my post did upset and trouble you, something no one of you can´t do on me.

I did appreciate that you, you kind of admit that about that the Lydiard way to lace the shoe Is just one minor detail, with no interference on the enhance the performance and as ridiculous it is, should be banned from what is Lydiard training and what is not. Once i read one post from HRE to defend that it enhance the performance. You say that it doesn´t. I was right about the fundamentalism of HRE and some other.

For all the other aspects that you said that some folks do different to what Lydiard prescribes, i always did imagine that fundamentalists are hypocrites. Hypocrisy it means it precisely. The hypocrite says one thing and acts differently.

One more point that you and rekrunner both dont understood in my post. I used the word progression, that is different than update into modernity. You used learning and change, what doesn´t mean update necessary. One example. you learn to count, some mathematics, and after you lean about to solve one problem of equation. You lean and you progress in science, one step further, but your equation doesn´t mean that you know about the indate on the fractal matemathics. I accept that Lydiard did some steps to go further, to progress, but for one disciple to admit that we may to lace the shoe different than what Lydiard did it not update. Since altitude training is something update, modern training on these days, the simple fact to think that the altitude training is good isn´t update. To train at altitude is one step on the progress, BUT to train Lydiard on altitude as well, is outdate training really indeed, and so outdate as to train Lydiard on sea level.

How can I find out more about modern progressions?

I never said Lydiard lacing helps performance. I said it feels a tiny bit better to me than conventional lacing does. And really, what is your fixation with lacing shoes?

rekrunner,

In my opinion, the best way to find out about what training methods work and what doesn't work, is to actually apply all the ideas you know through coaching. What's written in books is great but there isn't one universal form of training. Training must be modulated to fit the individual you're coaching/advising.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it again, I don't understand what is the fixation or obsession with Lydiard and his methods on this message board, seriously! Look, people have been running fartleks, hill reps, long runs, high mileage,low mileage, moderate mileage, long track reps, short track reps etc.. etc.. before lydiard. As far as I'm concerned the "ingredients" have remained the same.

In my opionion, succesful oaches develop their own coaching styles through trial and error. I don't think that as a coach you're doing your runners a good service by following another coach's methods and techniques. It's interesting to see, analyze and try to understand what other runners did in their training to run a certain time but it isn't a good idea to try and copy another athlete's training schedule. Coaching is an on-going daily, weekly and yearly process that involves a lot of communication between the athlete and the coach to determine what's necessary in the training to achieve whatever the goal you're both working on. There has to be constant monitoring by the coach and it's very beneficial for the athlete to have his/her coach present during work outs.

Lydiard was a fantastic coach but rkrunner, please develop your own style of coaching. As Khadaffi said, it's simple, you have volume and intensity. It's up to you as a coach to determine what your runners need.

Thanks for the advice and concern, but I think you misunderstand my purpose. I do all those things, and I'm more runner than coach.

I keep reading that we've learned so much in the last 50 years. I like to read a lot of different things, when I'm finished running. But I haven't read much that looks all that new. Maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff. Seems like that should be an interesting subject to discuss. Isn't this forum here for that? Is it too much to ask, exactly what have we learned?

Do you think it's best I make this journey of discovery alone? Is that what all great coaches do -- never talk to each other about their ideas? Are you asking me to re-invent the wheel? Maybe with some luck, after destroying a few careers with my private experiments, in 50 years I'll be caught up to 2000.

(PS: All your advice about modulating training, feedback/communimcation between the coach/athlete, and determining what's necessary in your training -- these are key aspects of Lydiard's methods).

Early on i post what on the Lydiard Foundation site it´s Lydiard training. Training blocks, aerobics, 100miles, hill the Lydiard way, the anaerobic block, AND among all that Lydiard stuff, it´s the Lydiard way to lace the shoe.

At that occasion, i wrote it´s an absurd to consider the Lydiard way to lace the shoe at the same level of interest than all other Lydiard training main aspects. I call it ridiculous and build in the Lydiard cult.

Someone said i was wrong, because the lace shoe contributes decisively for the performance enhance. I took some examples of the beloved Lydiard runners, Lasse Viren, that didn´t lace the Lydiard way. I said that most of the olympic champions, world recordists, they did what they did without the Lydiard lace.

At some moment of that discuss HRE gets into the debate to defend the Lydaird way to lace the shoe. He said that the way to lace the shoe it was advised by Lydiard himself on the occasion he meet Lydiard.

So what ? The same old stuff. You tend personalize everything. To contest Lasse Viren you use your own example ! Don´t you understand it´s inadequate !

In one of the last posts someone tries to argue with me with Nobby lace use supposedly without follow that lace kind. But what is Nobby as a runner, what are Nobby best performances ? Nobby is one fat runner of jogging, and is one runner with no evident performance that i might take in consideration for the pros or cons of Lydaird training or the pros and cons of lace the shoe. The way Nobby laces the shoe it´s irrelevant as argument. Someone isn´t one coach with credentials simply because he gets close from another good coach - Lydiard. Nobby isn´t one good coach because he studies Lydiard, or did private conversations with Lydiard, or lived with Lydiard, or Lydiard did him a representative attorney. Coach knowledge doesn´t happens by osmosis. Osmosis is only one chemical property, not one human property, or that Lydiard, by some kind of magic introduces on Nobby or soemone else his training knowledge.

Therefore the individual examples of that kind of persons means nothing to the discuss. Or they know what they talk about by the use of coach science or they don´t.

Therefore, your tendency to use yourself as living example is inadequate for the appreciation.

If the Lydiardiste thinks that Lydiard should change his opinion about altitude training, it´s one step to progress, but not that Lydaird training is indate yet. Lydiard training, be done in altitude, be done at sea level, or be done into the water, or in subsoil, be done with what kind of lace the shoe, it´s the same outdate Lydiard training. What should be done was to update the training methodology.

Some they say that my long posts are only conversation, theory. I might agree, but do they think that when they post, are they do training ?

HRE wrote:

Kim told me about Brian. Very sad. I gave Nobby a copy of "Where Have All the Runners Gone?" It's one of the best articles I've read in recent years.

Haven't really read this thread so maybe this has been posted already but in case anyone's looking for it...

Yes. I got into the debate about shoe lacing and said I tried lacing my shoes as Lydiard suggested and found it more comfortable. That was all. You evidently don't read any more clearly than you write which is real accomplishment.

rekrunner wrote:I keep reading that we've learned so much in the last 50 years. I like to read a lot of different things, when I'm finished running. But I haven't read much that looks all that new.

You really don't think we've learned much in the past 50 years? For one I think we finally realized that it's not about all quality or all volume but about running a lot of miles, and then doing a majority of those miles fast. Yes, Lydiard had volume, lots of it. Lydiard also had quality. The point being, the best runners in the world run fast A LOT. I think we've finally figured out that the intervals of the 50s and 90s and the volume of the 70s and 80s needed to be combined. The one thing I don't like about Lydiard followers is that many only worry about mileage totals and plenty of that mileage may be unnecessarily slow. I've also seen Lydiard followers belittle those who enjoy the interval based training of Igloi and Stampfl, citing that Lydiards runners have run faster. But now Lydiards runners have been better by many many seconds and minutes. Does that make Lydiards contributions to the sport any less important? No, just as important as Iglois. But now the best in the world train differently than a "pure" Lydiard style.

Are you an self-proclaimed expert on Lydiard methods or modern training? Why do you spend so many words explaining the fallacies of "Lydiard lacing"?You say you want to battle the fallacies of Lydiard methodology, but you spend most of your effort on little things like Lydiard lacing, or what Nobby and HRE once said, or on marketing slogans like "Father of Jogging" and "Maker of Champions".The only way to bring your arguments forward, into the 21st century, is to talk about the modern methodology you pretend to be some kind of insider, and that the cultists refuse to learn. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

khadaffi on power wrote:

Early on i post what on the Lydiard Foundation site bla bla bla the way I see things is absurd bla bla bla HRE says bla bla bla Nobby says bla bla bla the true training discuss is bla bla bla

What do we believe in?

The cult of Lydiard. Yes.

The power and dominance of Snell. Yes.

The success of the 70s Finns. Yes.

It is more than enough.