Lydiard vs Coe vs Daniels

If Snell had better preparation, Mondo tracks, and professionalism he would have done a 3:43 without EPO.

You guys are pretty funny. It would have helped if Snell had a better coach.

HRE wrote:

...Essentially, Lydiard's program emphasizes laying in an aerobic base, especially through the use of longish runs, then using that base as a foundation for other more race-specific kinds of running.

...

Save for that mythical high school where distance atheletes do only short fast intervals, all of the training programs out there operate on the principle of "laying in an aerobic base then using that base as a foundation for more race-specific training". This is true of the gordon pirie mega-interval style programs -- these guys believed that interval training was a superior method of building that aerobic base. And to cite a modern day example, consider the morrocan system, where "aerobic endurance" is built on a regime consisting pretty much entirely of LT pace runs and 1k and 2k repeats at about 3k and 5k pace respectively. Let me emphasize here that in both examples we are dealing with training that has the building of aerobic endurance as the specific goal, and that it is intended to serve as the basis for subsequent race specific training.

So if the "idea behind the system" is the importance of aerobic base, and that it is the foundation for race specific training, then these programs do not differ in ideology from Lydiard. Yet it would seem quite a stretch to say the moroccan system is Lydiard. It would seem close to absurd to say that pirie trained using a Lydiard program.

If the general principle adhered to is the same, the only remaining difference between the systems is the method by which aerobic endurance is to be gained. Here Lydiard is pretty distinctive: long continuous runs at "best aerobic effort".

But if Lydiard says: Oh, and don't forget to do aerobic-endurance-building repeats during the base phase, then now he is completely indisguishable from gordon pirie mega-training (even that advocated "balance" i.e. continuous aerobic runs) save perhaps the emphasis and perhaps the nature of the repeats.

Ethiopian training appears to owe more to the pirie/zatopec tradition than it does Lydiard -- those ethiopian workouts are straight from the book pirie/zatopec, while they only elicit grudging acceptance from the lydiard camp (oh, yes those workouts are not inconsistent with lydiard [but we didn't do them])

Why am I interested in the sessions? because if there are any ideas behind a program they ought to manifest themselves in the training. If lydiard believes you ought to lace your shoes in a particular manner, and doesn't lace his shoes in that manner, or have his athletes lace his shoes in that manner, what am i to make of such a belief?

If I believe aerobic-transluminence will make me run a faster 5k, then my workout program damn well ought to have elements which increase aerobic-transluminence.

So. You've said that there are IDEAS behind the lydiard program. Well let's have it, what are they? and how are they made manfest in the lydiard program?

They just like to say that everyone is using the Lydiard system because it sounds cool. They have very little understanding of what the Lydiard system is from Galloway. Or is it just the same thing. HRE and Trackhead give it up , you have no logic behind your argument.

Lydiard says:

Get in the volume

do the long run

Run hills

Work LT

Improve basic speed

Don't overdo intensity

Do race specifc work as needed

Lydiard is not a formula. There are guidlines and rules. You act as if all Lydiard is is a 12-steop process written in Run to the Top.

Again, I am not saying that Kostre read Run to the Top and said, "this is what I'll do" but he may have been influenced by Lydiard, and certainly he has come to the same conclusions

There are no significant differences between the Ethiopian's training and between Lydiard's training guidelines -- which rules do they break?

Trackhead wrote

Lydiard says:

Get in the volume

do the long run

Run hills

Work LT

Improve basic speed

Don't overdo intensity

Do race specifc work as needed

Lydiard was not the first coach to use those guidlines. The fact that those are your criteria for saying something is Lydiard is very vague. Galloway also uses those guidelines. But few on here would say that his methods are Lydiard based. Coe also uses those guidelines. So why is that the Ethiopians aren't using Coe compared to Lydiard. Lydiard's system is more specific than you make it out to be. Lydiard did have a pretty basic formula. He did not mix in all the components year round like the Ethiopians or Kenyans. That idea is more based on Frank Horwill and Coe. So just because the Ethiopians use a long run, hills,basic speed, and LT work does not mean it is Lydiard based.

I totally agree with bust her. Trackhead,It looks like you are showing a relationship that doesn't exist. The Lydiard training schedule doesn't look like what the africans are doing at all.

read Snell's book about work in the base phase

I already told you what the principles were. So did Trackhead. If you want to say we haven't there isn't much we can do.

Pirie never claimed to be using Lydiard. In fact, Pirie called Lydiard's ideas "rubbish." He was a firm disciple of Gerschler, who paid some, though not much attention to building an aerobic base. What was different between Gerschler's base building and Lydiard's is that Lydiard had his athletes build that base by doing extended runs away from the track. Gerschler had nearly everything done on the track and very little of it was "steady." Endurance was developed with intervals, speed was developed with intervals, intervals were done pretty much year round and frequently.

Arthur develops endurance with extended runs at comparatively relaxed paces, done away from the track. When you see the three hour runs and ninety minute runs in Geb's schedule, you're seeing something that's much more likely to have been derived from Lydiard than from Pirie or Gerschler.

There was a therad a while back with some of Viren's sessions listed, as does last month's Running Times. Take a look at Viren's schedules. Are they exactly what Arthur published in "Run to the Top?" No. Viren rarely ran more than 15-16 miles at a time and usually no more than once a week. That's a far cry from a 22, an 18, and two 15s. But Viren, Haikkola, and every Finnish runner I've spoken with acknowledged that Viren's training was based mostly on Arthur's ideas. Did Rob DeCastella train exactly like Barry Magee? No. He did some interval work weekly all year. But Pat Clohessey trained with Arthur and is a "Lydiard" guy. He adapyed the system to suit Deek's needs, which were differnt than those of Keats, Puckett, Magee, etc. Do the Japanese or South Koreans follow Lydiard's original schedules exactly? No. But they all acknowledge that what they do is drawn from Arthur's model. Go to Bob Hodge's website and look at his training. It doesn't look exactly like what is in Arthur's books. But Hodgie readily acknowledges that he was inspired by Arthur.

So the principles are understandable and adaptable. If you're so thick that you can't see how they might be applied in ways other than the original, that's yoiur problem.

As I mentioned once before, the system begins with building a bsae by doing extended runs at a reasonably comfortable pace and using that base as a foundation for more race specific sorts of work, i.e., hills, traditional intervals, sprints, etc. you can do that in several combinations and if you do, you're following Arthur's methods whether you care toi admit it or not.

bump

what would a high school kid, capable of 52/1:58/4:31 do as workouts (a sample week) in the early, middle, and late track seasons do according to the three systems being discussed here?

I have tried to stay out of this argument. I can't , so here goes :

HRE is dead right.

If you want the latest athletes from NZ who will acknowledge basic Lydiard principles look at the Olympic Triathlon last week. Gold and Silver to NZ.

Hamish Carter does his running under Chris Pilone. Does Chris have his athletes train to exact Lydiard schedules NO ! But he will acknowledge Arthur's Model.

Hamish's first Coach Jack Ralston was a Lydiard disciple.

Hamish's business partner Mark Watson is an ex student of mine (In fact I got him into Endurance Sport)

Mark constantly refers back to Arthur's Principles.

Do I train my athletes to exact Lydiard Schedules NO ! but we stick to the basic ideas.

Arthur never wanted to publish those schedules as he treated every athlete differently. They were always supposed to be a guide.

What more can we say !!!

HRE, the gerschler/pirie program was citied as an example of a program which was NOT lydiard, and pretty much everyone can agree is NOT lydiard. I hope we can all agree gerschler != lydiard.

Now gerschler advocated principle P: "building an aerobic base as a foundation for more race specific work". From this principles such as gerschler developed his training program.

But now people are telling me "building an aerobic base as a foundation for more race specific work" is a Lydiard principle, and that if you follow this principle, you are using a Lydiard program.

So gerschler == lydiard

But gerschler != lydiard

How is one to resolve this dilemma?

It would surprise me greatly if you could not find many athletes from New Zealand who would characterize their training as following the principles of Lydiard.

My inability to understand trackhead's characterization of Ethiopian training as being based upon Lydiard DOES NOT stem from the fact that the Ethiopian schedule contains workouts which are not on Lydiard's schedules.

Rather it derives from the fact that there are workouts on the Ethiopian schedule which would appear to VIOLATE A LYDIARD PRINCIPLE: that aerobic endurance is developed by (longer) continuous runs at a "best aerobic effort" pace.

Now, this is not a paradoxical situation, in and of itself.

It may be that "aerobic endurance is developed by (longer) continuous runs at best aerobic effort pace" is not a LYDIARD principle.

It may be that from the standpoint of Lydiard that workouts such as 40x400 at 10k pace are not for developing aerobic endurance, though I would wager that that is precisely what the Ethiopians think they are for.

It may be any of a number of other things.

It is fine that Lydiard had is athletes run intervals during the base building phase. Maybe someone who knows could tell us what type of intervals, how many? what pace, etc. Not so that we could add this to the "lydiard schedule", but to help us understand what principles Lydiard used to devise his training program.

HRE most coaches take ideas from other coaches. Just because a coach uses one aspect of Lydiard like a long run does not mean that they are using the Lydiard system. Once you get further away from aspects like the periodization aspects of Lydiard's program can you really call it based on Lydiard. NO. That is why you can make a distinction between Lydiard,Coe, and say Portugese.

"they all acknowledge that what they do is drawn from Arthur's model." I don't think that is the case with most coaches.

Who cares? Just run and use the system you feel most comfortable with, or make up your own. Doesnt anyone out here sometimes just enjoy making up your own workout, fartlek, hills, etc. without worrying about LT, tempo pace, threshold, mmol, etc.? Or am I the only non-elite runner out here.

If it makes you feel better and smarter to say you are a "lydiard disciple" go ahead, whatever the heck that means anyway.

i can say "it may be" until i'm blue in the face, but it does not disprove anything. learn a better approach to rhetoric.

as for your skepticism, have you actually read any of lydiard's books? try it. what you will find, i feel, is that he did NOT emphasize one type of training program. his emphasis lay on a few of the following points (HRE and others, feel free to correct them, as it has been a couple of years since i've read):

--aerobic basework is critical to distance performance. much the same as any coach, you must have the ability to sustain a workload a higher intensity. but first, in order to do so, cardiovascular strength is built through high mileage (i will get into the physiological ramifications of these in brief) higher miles = increased duration of volume return to the heart = increased stroke volume

--paced runs throughout phases, especially the 3/4 effort runs, etc. these are much like the 1k and 2k intervals, but in an easier to understand form (remember, much of what lydiard wrote was watered down for beginners and intermediates). these would improve LT and running economy (lower sustained percentage of VO2max required for a given pace).

--long runs, particularly in base phase, for all runners. in addition to benefits noted above, 3-hour runs are beneficial in two ways: 1) increased capillarization. long periods of continuous running, even at slow-moderate pace, lead to development of denser capillary beds in the muscles employed, due to the fatigue of motor units. this enhances oxygen delivery at ALL paces, thereby further increasing VO2max (i believe this is correct) as well as decreasing diffusion distance of O2 and thereby allowing greater aerobic reliance rather than lactate production. 2) recruitment of different motor units. as the prime movers at slower paces, the ST units, fatigue over time, other units are recruited to maintain pace. this aerobic use increases their mitochondrial density and converts them into better oxygen burners.

--strides (and later short intervals) employed. lydiard deemed strides at a slight downhill/with the wind to be ideal for use after a paced run. this, much as modern research has pointed out, aids in efficient recruitment (much as the short intervals of Colorado's program, for example) without fatigue. by running on slight downhills, the body is forced to recruit motor units at a rate typically not seen. practice over time makes for more efficient running at fast speeds/races. the short intervals serve much the same purpose, but with the added benefit of lactate tolerance built in.

--hill work post-base, pre-interval. lydiard was a believer in 'bounding' on hills: exaggerated, powerful movements to mimic not only the 'drive' phase of running, but also to aid muscle recruitment. (coe did much the same on his famed 150m hill featured in photo in Martin and Coe's "Better Training for Distance Runners.") this has the added benefit of not only recruitment, but also places tension on the tendons attached to the prime movers. this stimulation leads to adaptation in tendons. Lydiard claimed that none of his runners versed in his program ever had Achilles problems.

--harder intervals (and race-specific) in preparation for racing. everyone knows the benefits: eke out additional gains in VO2max, lactate tolerance, neuromuscular recruitment, running economy...nothing shocking here. much as most coaches (including Coe&Martin), emphasis on distances 1/2, same, and double the 'target' race distance.

to address further comments by scepticus, lydiard never claimed that all gains were made by continuous running. if so, then why would he build in short intervals, long intervals, hill workouts, etc. into his program?

also, lydiard did not advocate "one dogma" approach. he simply stated what he had found seemed to work best for himself and his athletes. considering his innovative, empirical approach, i think he would be quite open to amendments based on new evidence.

finally, i'm not here to argue on approach over another (in fact, if you look at my post to jtupper a few pages back, i'm here to learn more about his program, the one of the three in question in which i am least well-versed). i think that arguing over the specifics of these training programs is like arguing over directions to a restaurant: you're going to get there in the end, even if the routes vary some. much the same vein, these different training programs are designed to get a runner to the same place: peak performance. increasing VO2max, running economy, mitochondrial density, capillarization, LT, etc. are tenets of any effective program.

now if only we could get Martin and Daniels to weigh in person, lending their exhaustive experience to the discussion. (that way, half-educated hacks like myself could learn, distill, and adapt their principles to our own running).

best of luck, regardless of system.

When I see statements that Arthur has made, like "best aerobic effort", These come from his work in the 70's when he strted to discuss Training with Scientists.

If you look at his early "ideas" or "Principles" he did not use those Terms because he did not know what they were.

All Arthur was trying to do was put together a Training regime that would work succssfully because he felt that the excessive "Interval training" and the opposite "Light Jogging" did not seem to work.

He played with ideas that he saw from an FAM Webster publication from the 20's and was encouraged by a very forward thinking gentleman in the Lynndale Club, Jack Dolan.

Where Arthur saw Webster saying a "Long stroll" meaning a walk. He decided to run.

His experiments went from 250 mile weeks to 25 mile weeks.

Eventually he found a rough sort of middle ground.

ie : the 10 week buidup of 100 mile weeks.

It is the Scientists who started to put all the fancy words to it all.

Read Arthur's first book printed in the 1960's "Run to the Top". You won't find words like "Anaerobic Threshold" in there. It is all good old common sense.

There are a heap of people on here who have access to that book and will correct me if necessary.

BTW: I was a member of Lynndale club for many years and if it was not for Jack Dolan I may not ber running today.

"also, lydiard did not advocate "one dogma" approach. he simply stated what he had found seemed to work best for himself and his athletes. considering his innovative, empirical approach, i think he would be quite open to amendments based on new evidence"

So if he did not advocate one approach then how would you say that something is Lydiard as opposed to any other system. Or Lydiard is all inclusive. Thus every approach would be Lydiard based.

"i think that arguing over the specifics of these training programs is like arguing over directions to a restaurant: you're going to get there in the end, even if the routes vary some. much the same vein, these different training programs are designed to get a runner to the same place: peak performance. increasing VO2max, running economy, mitochondrial density, capillarization, LT, etc. are tenets of any effective program."

Actually we do need to discuss the specifics of these training programs. So that we as coaches and athletes have a better understanding of what might work for a given individual. Too many times coaches throw athletes into a group and train them all the same way. When each athlete might need something different. Lydiard took a long time to understand this concept. Now the trick is then with limited time with a large number of athletes how to train them all to the best advantage of each athlete.