Lydiard Imitations

It's fine, there is much usage in my country as well, even in track and field. And i carry shame for what the British did when they arrived in Australia. It is as shameful as any imperialistic country that has conquered an indigenous race. In fact there are three aboriginal guys staying here at the moment and they are providing many stories. One involves a massacre site. Here hundreds of aboriginals had been driven off a certain cliff to their deaths. Horrific treatment of another human being, all for the sake of greed ie we want this land so we are going to kill you so we can have it. By the way this was 200 years ago and we have moved forward.

The thing is in terms of corruption Italy is about the worst case for a Western first world country and Australia is one of the best cases. So your argument doesn't really work. Actually i prefer New Zealand as a place to live and this is the least corrupt country in the world.

Are you suggesting i do an internet search for the training plan you developed your 8000 point decathlete on? Sorry, just say a few words and let us read them. What is the problem? You don't have a clue about developing a decathlete just admit it ok. Or prove that you do. Or shutup.

This is gross inansity and only goes to prove what sort of coach you are. Nobody in the universe could develop anywhere near 56 athletes at the same time. Any coach who claims what you just claimed is only interested in his own resume. I doubt you give a shit about a single one of your athletes, regardless of how your portray yourself. They are just money in the bank to you and your ridiculous and career destroying approach. How many Kenyans have you cherry picked following their training camps? How often does an agent ring Renato and say, we have someone new just appeared. How many of these athlete have kept improving for longer than three years? A few i admit, but out of the hundreds this is a disgraceful result. And those few, like Mosop, you push out distance whilst they are still in their prime - mid 20s. Do you do this because they start failing to run as quick as they did in their first three years? Yes of course. Your race pace methodology actually causes them to become slower at their original distances. This is actually what is happening is it not?

Yes everyone is stupid except you. Yet, you still are saying things i consider to be in the same category.

Wow. So let me be clear on this, because there are so many new facts to absorb all at once:- Are you saying that the terms "specific" paces and "anaerobic" training are interchangeable? What if your main event is the marathon? Isn't that "specific" pace below the "anaerobic" threshold?- Are you sure that 90% of US high schools have been doing this for 60 years? Since 1952? I thought the 70's and the 80's were the wonder years for US running where everyone did high volumes of aerobic running.- Are you sure it's 90%? Not 75%? Not 95%? And this is the same 90% that sucks?- Are you sure that the only difference is that Canova uses high aerobic volume too? That's actually a big difference, if the athletes are ready for this combination of training. (I think most would agree they are not, including Renato.)- Are 90% of high schools using "anaerobic" interval training connected to race pace?- Do these 90% of high schools have a 2 month GENERAL phase where they develop their race specific aerobic support required for their event(s)? It's not clear the way you described it.- Do 90% of high schools have any concept of progression towards race pace and race distance, with a transition from INTENSIVE to EXTENSIVE training?- Aren't some high schools using Jack Daniels for training? Are they part of the 90%, or the 10%? Daniels also has a "non-linear" periodization, which includes 18 weeks (out of 24 weeks) of I pace, R pace, and T pace training, and only 6 weeks of aerobic only running. So it's not really Lydiard based (linear periodization), but also Daniels E/M/T/I/R paces are not quite the "general/special/specific" training like Renato's.- I read on page 20, a Renato quote where you need 10-12 years to build your aerobic house, with suggested mileage buildup, and general+specific ratios, before attempting the kind of training he proposes, with increased volumes of intensity. Seems like Renato would agree with you about not doing that in high school, and already has, as early as 2004.Thanks for clearing up any misconceptions I may have.

gypsy,

I think Renato said 56 juniors in his career, not at the same time.

So let me get this straight....you are the famous, bombbay the greatest. I´ve read all your books, i know all the olympics you coach and i know very well your training method. Congrats, you are my major coach influence. It´s an honor that the great bommbay does post on LRC. !

Antonio Cabral wrote:Your problem it´s that you are so self centered that you think that the board just thinks what you think. I don´t post for you specifically, otherwise if my posts were for you i wouldn´t post, because you are the lost case of this board, the idiot of this thread really.

You need to grow up, you are younger than my sons, you ned to grow up. You need to learn to live in community, to respect the other to be respected.

Hodgie-san wrote:That was weak Antonio, and nonsensical. You act as if you have been the pillar of virtue.

Antonio. I wonder why you act so juvenile when you are so 'old'. Did you miss out of gaining the wisdom that usually comes with age?

And the self-centered one is you. I respond to other people on this board as often as something is directed at me. You are selective in your answering. We are still waiting for the Antonio approach to coaching a 2.09 marathoner. Or do you remove that claim now?

As for community, this thread would be fine without your presence. Your actions are exclusive to community whereas mine are inclusive. We in fact have opposite agendas in this way.

In 1990 following a disclocated ankle and subsequent operation, i ran into trouble with the rehabilitation, so my coach sent me to the AIS for a month to receive the expert care up there. There was a lot of calf/ankle/foot rehab involved.

The wobble board became my daily friend as i attempted to regain proprioception and this led to walking around on slopes a lot.

The strength was regained with the calf raises initially. There were 3 types and all done of a step or raised platform.

1. straight leg ie knee is locked

2. bent leg ie knee is bent (small angle initially)

3. from bent to straight - this was the key ....

number 3 started at the bottom position where ankle is at full range and knee is at maybe 30 degrees. Then the straightening phase involves both the knee and the ankle being extended simultaneously. There was a strong focus on reaching full extension in ankle and knee simultaneously. Timing was an important factor.

Following the phase of pure strengthening an explosive element was added. Initially this was to let yourself 'drop' into the bottom range and then slowly extend to the top position. Later this moved into skipping.

rekrunner wrote:

gypsy,

I think Renato said 56 juniors in his career, not at the same time.

You are probably right rekrunner, i wonder over how many years was this. I also wonder how many other athletes he 'coached' that didnt make the national team. I also wonder whether Renato was a coach or an event discipline manager.

Still my points will stand, the mass athlete approach is common enough. Personally, i prefer to have enough hands on time with each individual as a different approach.

I've not had good success with calf raises as they always tighten my calves, and have put me out of running.

Therefore I avoid them.

My legs get plenty of exercise from just running. I like the hills, and the lunges might be good too.

calf raises wrote:

I've not had good success with calf raises as they always tighten my calves, and have put me out of running.

Therefore I avoid them.

My legs get plenty of exercise from just running. I like the hills, and the lunges might be good too.

I'm with you on the running and the hills and the major elements that develop the legs. I used those calf raises for that rehab period and kept the going afterwards. They often tend to be very slow, especially the combination raises.

gypsy wrote:

Antonio. I wonder why you act so juvenile when you are so 'old'. Did you miss out of gaining the wisdom that usually comes with age?

Thank you very much. It´s a honor and i´m very proud to be juvenile. What you might think is a fault i see it as a talent and a positive resource.

So you realize that i´m juvenile. Yes i do. Most individuals of my age or still younger than my age, they are intellectual crystallized long before my age, jealous persons , arrogant, and their mind can´t be dynamic, and they are just opportunists.

Do you know the reason i´m mind juvenile and í´m forever young. i don´t pact and I don´t accept hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty and i judge what is right or what is wrong independently of my personal interest.

I´m not like HRE "state of mind", i hope never will be. He said "whatever you will say you willn´t change my opinion" (not literal, but it´s the idea). Do you want that kind of inclusive mind crystallization that someone that says that willn´t change ?

Most people did defend the same principles for decades, they got interests of several sort to what they think that is right, interests from the issue they are committed, compromised to the training ideas they are engaged. What you want from that individual ? That after decades he will say "sorry i was been wrong, i will try to change", Of course that he don´t. Of course ther´s the other group, those who don´t got training knowledge or intellectual skill to understand what is the better from several methods.

I do a much better service to the run community than what you might think, while I “blow the horn” of modern training.

Of course the truth is the light of flame that for some they just can avoid.

Antonio Cabral wrote:yadda yadda yadda

you want to keep talking about yourself again do you? Good luck with that. As for what you just said, well it's more drivel isn't it. More words to describe exactly what you are not. You have not retained a childlike innocence to the world, not by a long shot. What you have retained is childishness, the negative aspects of being a child.

Anyway, lets get back on track with a discussion about training shall we. I am still very interested about the athlete you claim to have coached. You know the one, 2:09 marathoner. You got anything at all?

HRE wrote:

The "improved" things you mention are gadgets. They have changed and improved with time. The human body is the same now as it was in 1960, AD or BC.

I cannot prove you wrong. You cannot prove me wrong. I am not "hanging on" to anything. I am challenging an assumption and explaining why. Your "hanging on" comment is as applicable to you as it is to me, perhaps even more so because you are making an assertion and I am asking a question.

It doesn't matter. I cannot say what I have to say any more clearly. I hope no one responds to me because it will tempt me to answer and because I cannot say anything more clearly than I already have I hope I can force myself not to write anything more.

Richard,

This is why you get such a hard time on this forum.

The above response is ABSURD ... no wonder you didn't quote me so others could make a clear comparison.

Firstly ....

You clearly do not believe in EVOLUTION.

The human body is NOT the same now as in 1960 AD or BC ... for starters the current young generation are on average inches taller than your or my generation ... & in 1960 BC you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who was 6 feet tall.

But let's assume that you're referring to the human physiology .... we are not all the same .... consider, some individuals have lots of slow twitch fibres, others have lots of fast twitch fibres ... why would you train everyone the same way?

Do you believe that the physiology of a Kenyan (whose ancestors have lived for thousands of years at altitude) is EXACTLY the same as your average New Yorker?

But the ABSURDITY in your response is to assume that Lydiard's interpretation (in 1960) of how to train an individual based on his limited understanding of physiology cannot be improved upon.

Besides, I was not referring to human physiology but the EVOLUTION of Training Methodology .... something that you are just not prepared to discuss.

It is absolute CRASS & STUPID to think that there is only ONE TRUE WAY .... Training Methodology is an EVOLVING process ... as we learn more we can refine & improve ... & the end result is FASTER racing times ....

You're stuck in a Lydiard time-warp & cannot accept sub 2-05 Marathons .... absolute crazy!

Finally, it is not I who is making "assertions" ... I'm merely making the point that the more knowledge & experience we have the better we understand things & can PROGRESS Training Methodology.

You on the other hand asserts one thing ....

"Lydiard is the defining Training Methodology ...& you cannot improve it" ... hence your unwillingness to debate as you would be (have been) intellectually exposed.

Reddy wrote:

gypsy wrote:

i think Rebatos program, for the last three months before a major, on the back of a Lydiard preparation, would work really well.

Bingo. Renato's program is high volume and a mixture aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic results in long term improvement, Anaerobic results in short term improvement. If you followed a Lydiard style base ie years of aerobic training followed by 3 months of Canova's (or ANY other anaerobic training) you will get excellent results.

The problem is if you try to continue Canova training year round you will fail to improve because anaerobic training results in short term benefit, not long term benefit.

You are correct to say that ANAEROBIC training results in only short term improvement ... BUT where do you get the idea that for his 10K/Marathon/XC runners Renato uses Anaerobic Training?

Race pace training is just that .... RACE PACE ....

Based on commonly accepted principles ...

MARATHON race pace is 98% AEROBIC (& only 2% Anaerobic)

10K/XC race pace is 90% AEROBIC (& only 10% Anaerobic)

The published schedules for Moses Mosop's training in 2006 leading to his victory @ the Kenyan XC Championships listed the Anaerobic content of his Training Mileage for the three/four months in question @ LESS than 5%.

Renato probably does LESS Anaerobic type training over the course of a season than Lydiard ever did ... you won't see loads of 400m reps @ mile pace in Renato's schedules! (unless it's for his milers)

I think its you that are on the wrong planet.Human evolution happens on a timescale where 2000 years are nothing.Diet and medicine have changed alot.Do you really think evolution is a explanation of progress in time the last 40 years?Then you make yourself look as absurd as creationists or flat earth theorists.

Jackanory wrote:

Richard,

This is why you get such a hard time on this forum.

The above response is ABSURD ... no wonder you didn't quote me so others could make a clear comparison.

Firstly ....

You clearly do not believe in EVOLUTION.

The human body is NOT the same now as in 1960 AD or BC ... for starters the current young generation are on average inches taller than your or my generation ... & in 1960 BC you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who was 6 feet tall.

Dear OMR,

Go back & learn how to READ ... it's a requirement for you to get through High School!

I was talking of the evolution/CHANGE in Training Methodologies!

& besides EVOLUTION is an on-going process.

Ah, so you mean the human body did alter and increase in height due to evolution/CHANGE in Training Methodologies!Obvious!ahahahahahahaha"The human body is NOT the same now as in 1960 AD or BC ... for starters the current young generation are on average inches taller than your or my generation ... & in 1960 BC you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who was 6 feet tall."

Jackanory wrote:

Dear OMR,

Go back & learn how to READ ... it's a requirement for you to get through High School!

I was talking of the evolution/CHANGE in Training Methodologies!

& besides EVOLUTION is an on-going process.

Jackanory,

Maybe I'm unusual, but I often get the impression that a lot of people are just arguing different things.

I think HRE is saying something different. Of course training has evolved. Even Lydiard training has evolved from the pure linear periodization that gets so heavily criticized. As we mentioned before, Lydiard himself proposed other alternatives to maintain the aerobic/anaerobic balance and still peak when desired.

But guess what, many other things have evolved in parallel:

- Knowledge of physiology has evolved

- Technology of running accessories, e.g. clothes, shoes, gadgets, drinks, gels, etc.

- Diet and nutrition have evolved

- The sport has evolved from amateurism towards professionalism

- The profile of the top athletes has evolved from Western to Eastern African (Kenyans tend to be smaller and lighter in spite of generations getting larger)

- The mentality of athletes has evolved

- Running surfaces have evolved

- Times have evolved, making the impossible seem possible

- Unfortunately drugs have evolved (e.g. blood doping -> EPO -> CERA -> microdosing EPO), and fortunately drug testing has evolved

- Incentives for racing events has evolved

- Marathon racing has evolved recently due to the lack of 10K races

- ...

Just as training hasn't stopped evolving, so the rest of the world evolves as it revolves. To claim that changes in training methodology are the absolute unique sole cause of the improvements in times, is to deny the evolution of the many other facets related to racing as possibly also contributing to the improvements. HRE isn't so much denying evolution of training, as saying that it's not the only thing, and it's hard to quantify the effect of each individual contribution. Some may be zero (e.g. both Lydiard and Canova don't dope) or even negative, but there is always the chance that one or more of these alternatives have contributed positively. Training may be the biggest contribution, but it also may not be possible to apply this training to the Western athletes of today.

I suggested one way to help eliminate many of these variables, short of proving anything with a complete battery of large scale long term controlled studies, is for Renato to train an Italian (or Antonio to train a Portuguese) to hang with Moses, or alternative, have Nobby or Lorraine Mollar, or HRE, or Ken Livingstone train a Kenyan (or Japanese or American) to hang with Moses, or maybe we will have to wait for gypsy to Soviet train 56 Juniors to a long term career that rivals Carlos Lopes or Haile Gebresselassie.

I don't think HRE meant to accuse or insult Renato, but that seems to have backfired in a big way. gypsy was certainly more direct with his comments, while HRE was just saying there are still many other possibilities which can not be ruled out or ignored.

You mention slow twitch and fast twitch fibers requiring different training, but this was not a distinction lost on Lydiard. He recognized that there were speed types and endurance types. But an important part of training is observing the athletes response to training, and adapting the plan. In this way, there is little risk under Lydiard of giving athletes the same training, especially in the later "less generic" phases, even if the plans are initially the same.

[quote]gypsy wrote:

[ It is as shameful as any imperialistic country that has conquered an indigenous race. In fact there are three aboriginal guys staying here at the moment and they are providing many stories. One involves a massacre site. Here hundreds of aboriginals had been driven off a certain cliff to their deaths. Horrific treatment of another human being, all for the sake of greed ie we want this land so we are going to kill you so we can have it. By the way this was 200 years ago and we have moved forward.]

Stronger cultures are constantly eclipsing weaker cultures. If you really believe it is shameful, are you willing to abandon your land and house and possesions and give them back to aboriginees and move back to England? Of do you like saying it is terrible what your forefathers did but you will enjoy the benefits of it and enjoy the far superior culture that exists in Australia today? Like many Western Civilization decendants you are very confused and weak compared to your forefathers which is why Western Civilization is in a Global state of decline and will itself be soon eclipsed. You won't like what you get but you will get what you deserve.

I´m still very interested about the athletes you coach.

When will you schedule the runners you coach ?