Lydiard Imitations

rekrunner wrote:lots of good stuff as usual, but nothing definitive, also as usual.

Maybe you can take a stance one day? I'm all for a solid analysis of pros and cons but at some stage a decision has to be made doesn't it? After all without a decision there can be no subsequent action. So how do we actually train if we cant make a decision on which way to go?

You raise the idea of Lydiard's individuality and the indivdualisation of his coaching with each athlete. Of course this was happening, Lydiard was running by their side constantly saying things to each athlete. This is modification on the run, something very few coaches can do. BUt the very fact that Lydiard created his own completely holistic approach, never seen before, surely show just how much of an individual Arthur himself was. For me it is pretty easy to extrapolate that someone so individualistic who be treating him athletes in exactly the same way. And since i individualise my own coaching to a degree rarely seen (and im happy to show this in an infinite variety of ways if required), and since Arthur is ahead of me on the 'path', a path he deliberately took, Cerutty deliberately took and i have deliberately chosen to take (in 1997), then i can fully accept if i was to be coaching in front of Arthur or Percy they would be able to fine tune my own understanding to the next level. Those two are the only two 'guru' status distance coaches to have ever lived. Strange how they they are from cities 4 hours apart by plane and lived at the same time in History. Perhaps without the trans-tasman rivalry neither would have taken things so high.

I am pretty much solely interested in personal evolution and the creation of change. All the best information about change come from the guru's of history - Jesus, Buddha, Osho, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, Krishna, Socrates, Gurdijeff, Morihei Ueshuiba, Bruce Lee etc etc so that was a good place to start.

Something a little more contemporary which is amazing is the book "Who moved my cheese" by Spencer Johnson. It will change your mind literally as you read this book. Every person that 'trains' themselves in any way should read this book.

ps Soviet Style - this is the main influence for me but is not what i am doing anymore. Now it is more of a meld between different influences.

But recently, just in Australia, we can see other evidence of Soviet Style. Steve Hooker is trained By a ex-Soviet athlete and now coach, who also coached Paul Burgess over 6m and Dimitry Markov over 6m. All three of those guys have been world champions. Moving across to the East Coast we saw a whit aussie run 10.03 and his training partner run 44.xx, both coached by a Russian. Anyway, those were just off the top of my head and im sure there are many more examples.

rekrunner wrote:

But I said "to hang with Moses". We know that Kenyans and Ethiopians can run fast times, even if the training is a little bit bad. Claims that modern methods are superior will be much stronger when the times of the West (or the South?) also drop. Or claims that Lydiard methods are equal will be much stronger when Lydiard trained Kenyans also compete.

So far, we are not even running as well, or as deep, as we did in the 70's

Ok, i am wondering now how well Renato went before he starting going to Iten headhunting for Kenyans.

And, i thought we had some evidence of Kenyans being trained Lydiard style in Japan. Is this disputed?

The decline of depth since the 70s is tricky to analyse. So many variables over such a period of time. Shall we have a crack? You can tidy up my looseness and i may prompt you in directions outside your current frame of reference - it might work really well! I start.

I think the problem centers around lifetyle ultimately. The decline of the physical being due to the steadily increasing automation of life. We can look at that 1000 ways and find solid evidence supporting each and every line of argument we might choose to follow. I think we can accept it as fact now, but it might be interesting to factualise the assertion anyway.

There is another issue, which might be termed as 'increased options and their availability. More available because of improved transportation and density of population, both of which are related to the increase automation of life idea. More also available as differentiation occurs, and new sports/physical activities are dreamed up. Perhaps now it is a better idea for some runner types to become a Free Runner and supplement that lifestyle with rockclimbing and mountain hiking. It is where i am heading now myself so maybe that's is why i chose that example.

But what else? Can we blame the coaches and agents and the shoe companies for being greedy and setting up in North Africa? Has this led to a massive growth spurt of these athletes now competing around the world. Does this not have some effect on Westerners, compounded by the fact their coaches, administrators, journalists etc are all saying 'oh no now we cant compete anymore'? Does not the short term process of training that Renato espouses, which improves his athletes performances for 3 years and no more (unless they move out distance and even then we only have a few examples of that), mean those africans rapidly improve, as if from nowhere, further adding to the psychological problem much of the west now has with competing against 'perceived impossible odds'?

Handball to you now.

CHALLENGE TO ANY INTERESTED DISTANCE RUNNER.

Simply put on some music and spin around for 60 minutes.

It will probably require a few stops and starts early on but the goal is to get into the continuous flow of this.

There is a most efficient way to move your feet to create the 'whirling' but this tends to work itself out naturally as the flow state is established.

Who is interested to try this and report back on the experience?

You're a loonie.

gypsy wrote:

CHALLENGE TO ANY INTERESTED DISTANCE RUNNER.

Simply put on some music and spin around for 60 minutes.

It will probably require a few stops and starts early on but the goal is to get into the continuous flow of this.

There is a most efficient way to move your feet to create the 'whirling' but this tends to work itself out naturally as the flow state is established.

Who is interested to try this and report back on the experience?

Monty Python wrote:

You're a loonie.

only partly

so you aren't up for the experiment then

gypsy wrote:

Does not the short term process of training that Renato espouses, which improves his athletes performances for 3 years and no more (unless they move out distance and even then we only have a few examples of that), mean those africans rapidly improve, as if from nowhere, further adding to the psychological problem much of the west now has with competing against 'perceived impossible odds'?

Handball to you now.

Gypsy, when you are constructive you bring new angles and a lot of knowledge, but could you PLEASE stop having your little digs and attacks at other people. It is impossible to win all arguments on an internet forum, so you have to learn to stop provoking arguments. First you lambasted Antonio quite rudely (fine to disagree or ignore, not OK to publicly call him a liar). Now you're constantly sniping at Renato. He has provided comprehensive examples of athletes he has coached successfully a decade or more in reply to your accusations.

Are you honestly suggesting he'd be a better coach if it took him ten years to take a given athlete from 13:20 to 12:55 rather than 3? Are you suggesting that he should have been in Iten ten years sooner?

Improvement over 3 years in an adult athlete is about right IMHO. We all know the situation where a high school coach or personal trainer gets someone to improve for 3 MONTHS and crashes and burns, but the absolute level they achieve is still lower than the neighbour who runs sensibly and regularly for a year. If they are achieving the absolute highest levels of performance, it MUST be because of a top quality training programme over years or they wouldn't get there.

In previous posts he has explained more eloquently than anyone why Kenya and Ethiopia do so well now and why the West (+"deep south", I guess) has declined. Dig them up.

gypsy wrote:

Now your 2.09 marathoner. What relationship did you have?

so what would renato, antonio, gypsy and others - jac, rek, hre etc (and Arthur) recommend for the training of a high school long/middle distance runner

Euro, none of those athletes have improved in their initial events after 3 years. This is my point, as an illustration of the dangers/problems with race pace methodology, which i am arguing against. Do i show any angst or annoyance towards you or rekrunner or just about everyone else in this thread? If Antonio and to a lesser but still apparent extent Renato, didn't take swipes and make bald faced statements about Lydiard and his approach in such a negative way i wouldn't respond like i do. Consider me a counterbalance. Anyway this was Renato's own response to my assertion about his 3 year improvement period.

Two examples and both cases of moving out distances early, but then a strange instantaneous transition to naming geb and bekele ... you can draw your own conclusions on what was going through his mind between talking about Kosgei and mentioning geb.

Of course not. But a better profile might be 1320>1300 over three years and then onto 1250 after 7.

Yes this is the most common number and i know why and i know what is necessary to get around it and create a longer career. But Lydiard already lays out the way to achieve this in very simple terms.

I'm pretty sure i've read every post in this thread so far. I have provided my own theory to this and mine is actually inclusive of what Renato is saying about superior knowledge being spread around Kenya. This is one reason why they are more successful recently, but far from the only one. It also fits with western coaches going to Kenya and spreading their word, missionary style, like Renato himself. It fits with Renato's assertion that AK is so loosely managed there can be no possibility of a centralised PED program, but happens to be the perfect situation for foreign coaches to move unhindered throughout Kenya. If there is any systemisation going on in Kenya it is not home grown. It is driven by the inter-related shoe company money, certain coaches and certain athlete manager/agents. eg

gypsy wrote:

Now your 2.09 marathoner. What relationship did you have?

Your turn Gipsy/Kimmy/Etc. wrote:http://www.letsrun.com/2008/bio/cabralbio.php

This is what i'm going off. Coach or advisor? It is ambiguous yes? So i inquired directly to Antonio only to receive no response. So i ask more questions all with no responses. Renato talks about all of his athletes all the time, yet Antonio never mentions anything to do with what seems to be his main athlete, nor the other named athlete for that matter. What is the truth i wonder so i ask and all i get is evasiveness. Draw your own conclusion.

larger than life wrote:

so what would renato, antonio, gypsy and others - jac, rek, hre etc (and Arthur) recommend for the training of a high school long/middle distance runner

I would be prepared to have a go if others are. Personally i would like to read what Kim Stevenson has to say as well.

As everybody here, that's exactly what I've done.

Your turn Gipsy/Kimmy/Etc. wrote:

As everybody here, that's exactly what I've done.

has there ever been a response to anyone?

I can speak just for myself: you, sir, are a moron.

SUMMARY

In past articles in this section, I have discussed the major components of endurance performance.

They are maximal oxygen consumption, lactate threshold, and efficiency. A friend of mine has added

an article on short term muscular power (Anaerobic capacity). This last component plays a negligible

role in long events but becomes increasingly important as the race distance decreases below 15

minutes. Anaerobic energy sources may account for 20% of the energy output in a 5-7 minute race. In

a 2 minute race, about 40 % of total energy is being supplied anaerobically.

I have also discussed the time-course of change of these components in the endurance athlete who

continues training for several years. Now, in this article I hope I have added to this foundation by

discussing the relationship between training characteristics and the impact on those components.

Understanding the underlying physiology now helps us to put the training program together. Short,

very high intensity interval training has only a small niche in the endurance athlete's training program.

It feels like a race. It hurts like heck. But, it has limited value in building the performance engine. I am

convinced that our focus must be on longer bouts of exercise as the foundation of our training

program. This is easily understood by you marathoners, but may be surprising news to you 1000

meter rowers, middle distance runners and, pursuit cyclists. The bigger take home message is this:

Even for you "power-endurance athletes", it is the consistancy and volume of exercise at 70% to 90%

of VO2Max in your training program that is going to have the single biggest long term impact on your

progress, not the number of workouts in which you achieve complete rigor mortis and cotton mouth!.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=134d8db52305559a&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3De44d21f1d3%26view%3Datt%26th%3D134d8db52305559a%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbS7TUzBK-KdWm1KMPgxoF92be6w-A&pli=1

This article Nobby sent to me i just found, i am reading the article now. His messsage was this:

NOBUYA HASHIZUME

7:55 AM (17 hours ago)

Peter:

I thought this might entertain you. A group of us, including Peter Snell and Keith Livingstone, had been discussing, via e-mails, about validity of Lydiard-type training. I think this is one of the things Keith had sent to us. Peter said that the downfall of interval training, despite its effectiveness on VO2Max, is that it destroys cell membrane and create too much cortisol.

Take a stance on what? My purpose here isn't to take a stance, but to discuss why we should make certain decisions one way or another. Isn't there some philosophy that says it's about the journey, not the destination? Nothing makes sense until you establish a context. The right choices requires the athlete in front of you, and detailed knowledge of his situation. For the young, maturing athlete, the highest priority is to establish and develop basic qualities, and work on eliminating any weaknesses. For the mature athlete, once basic qualities have been established, and weaknesses controlled, it's time to make some changes to keep the stimulus and improve your strengths. These goals can be accomplished a number of ways, and it is not necessary to commit to one universal master approach, and expect everyone else to follow the same approach. When choosing between a linear and non-linear approach, there is no benefit of one, that cannot be realized in the other, and no flaw of one that cannot be managed, or does not risk appearing in the other.

gypsy wrote:

Maybe you can take a stance one day? I'm all for a solid analysis of pros and cons but at some stage a decision has to be made doesn't it? After all without a decision there can be no subsequent action. So how do we actually train if we cant make a decision on which way to go?

I think HRE mentioned Sammy Wanjiru was trained like Lydiard, but I'm not sure that counts, until I've seen some more confirmation about how Wanjiru trained, or who trained him.But I still don't know why you've concluded Renato burns out his athletes in 3 years or less. In any case, I think we need to separate the two concepts of "modern training", and then the advanced stage with a high volume of intensity that Renato is doing with his athletes. I think it's highly possible to use a modern approach with general/special/specific phases, and still not violate Lydiard concepts (even if the method is different) of achieving an aerobic/anaerobic balance, and still manage to peak for the most important races at the end of the season. But in Renato's specific case, I've already showed you that such high volumes of intensity don't necessarily start until after a long period of aerobic development, like 7 to 10 years. He doesn't do this to beginners, and doesn't recommend it for beginners. So presuming your 3 years has any merit, you need to add 7 to 10 years minimum to that, to get careers of 10 to 13 years. But so far, it's not even clear that your 3 years still has merit. I'd need to see more supporting facts. I just haven't seen where that figure is coming from.Regard the decline in popularity, I think it's a combination of many of the factors you've mentioned: the west is getting lazy, wanting something for nothing; they have other opportunities; they are mentally demotivated by East African domination; and maybe a few others that always get mentioned. Somewhere along the line, we lost our heroes and role models, which starts a negative spiral of declining interest, declining sponsorship, less coverage on television, contributing to more declining interest, even less sponsorship money, etc. I don't know much about behind the scenes happenings of coaches, agents, and shoe companies, but I never suspected the fault lies with them, unless you blame the poor performances of the 90's for disconnecting the public, and I still don't think Renato espouses a short term process of training.

sorry in a rush so this is brief

It's pretty much Lydiard, but Nobby will have some details i hope. However there is this:

select bits:

"Long runs are for getting rid of fear of the distance and for building your legs, so I do them slow. In Japan people usually do 40 km long runs, but 38 km is enough."

"Q. The Olympic marathon was on August 24. What was the final phase of your training like in July and August?

(1) July 9: 38 km cross-country at a slow pace around 4:30 per km

(2) July 20: 30 km pace run on flat ground in around 1 hour 34 min.

(3) July 30: 38 km cross-country at a slow pace around 4:30 per km

(4) August 10: 30 km pace run on flat ground in around 1 hour 34 min."

"Other than that, I run about 15 km at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning before I have breakfast. I'd say it's like jogging, or a buildup to something like a pace run. I start around 4 minutes per km, drop it down to 3:30 in the middle, then end up down at about 3 minutes 5 seconds. I always want to finish thinking, "Aaaaah, that felt great. I had a good run.""

just look them up individually and check out their career progressions, I haven't found one yet.

We should look at this in more depth, as i don't agree the principles of training differ from novice to elite.

Possibly. general>special>specific is linear anyway, so we would just need to remove the damaging types of training during preparation phases and we are getting close.

And who does he do this with exactly? As far as i can tell he hasn't done this with anyone.

I talked with Arthur about this fairly extensively on the last time we were together as my oldest son was 12 and showing some interest in the sport.

Arthur's advice was to see if I could "get him interested in how far he can run rather than how fast." He told me of some kids that age in New Zealand who had done some 20 mile runs at his urging. I thought this was a bit far for my son, and most other kids, at his age. In fact it was a couple more years until he did any serious training outside of what his school teams did but I had him follow Arthur's ideas generally.

And really, those were pretty simple. Get in as many comfortably paced miles as the kid can handle, try to increase that number as time goes on. Limit hard racing and interval work as much as possible in the early years. Arthur liked something Holmer once said; "If you could get a runner to train for two years without racing you'd really have something."

Of course Arthur knew that wasn't going to happen but the point was that young runners need to build that aerobic house that Renato mentions and focusing on hard racing and fast training was going to inhibit that process.