Jackanory wrote:
REK,
You might find Brad Hudson's "Run Faster: From the 5K to the Marathon" a good source on the "modern" training method ... it also includes "training plans" for HS runners.
Alan.
If you mean "modern as opposed to Lydiard", I think most training books since the 1980s qualify. Peter Coe, Harry Wilson, Jack Daniels and many many more all describe keeping in touch with race pace throughout the year yet still stress aerobic development.
Thanks Jackanory and Eurodonkey.
You might be surprised how long I've been asking for a book recommendation representative of modern training, and for something I always thought was a simple and direct question and must have a clear answer, you are the first to actually respond with the name of a book, or an author.
I knew of Brad Hudson, Peter Coe and Jack Daniels, but now I'm ashamed to admit I had to look up who Harry Wilson was.
Eurodonkey: When I say "modern training", it's how Antonio and Renato describe it, with the general, special, and specific training paces. I wasn't sure if Daniels qualified in that sense, as his training paces are linked more to expected paces for different physiological parameters.
But anyway, thanks again.
Now you've got me perplexed and confused. In spite of your harsh, undiplomatic assessment of Renato's alleged greedy, short-term and short-lived approach, you still think he scores quite high, and deserves some credit for continued high performances starting the 4th year, in spite of stagnation in development. I guess I need some further clarification on what you want to say.Who are these other coaches, and what is the standard scale and what is this different scale? What is it that's happening around 3 years that typically stops development, and how do you overcome that?In 2011, world best marathon times dropped by about 2 minutes. Are you saying that with a different, more optimal, patient approach, these times could have dropped even further, say in the low 2:03's, or maybe even break into the 2:02's?
gypsy wrote:
I don't think he scores low at all but in fact quite high on the standard scale, but there are other coaches who belong on a different scale and should be treated accordingly and not drowned out by this tech talk, new age 'eyewash'.
I can't understand why complete nobodies come on here to trash one of the best running coaches in the world. Really, gypsy, you think you know more about coaching than Renato, who has coached dozens of athletes to major championship medals and major marathon titles? How many medal-winning athletes have YOU coached, gypsy? The amount of nonsense on here is just astounding. Renato: Please ignore these idiots who don't know what they are talking about and tell the rest of us more about your training methodologies!
HRE wrote:
1. To Lydiard, speedwork was sprinting; very fast, short runs, runs so short that no lactic acid was produced (yeah, I know we have a whole different take on lactic acid now but Lydiard thought it was a bad thing and was the reason you could only sprint so far.)
In his way of thinking, a session of hard 440s, 880s, etc. lead to the production of fatigue by-products and those by- products eventually slowed you down. He thought that you needed that sort of work to simulate the pace and breathlessness you'd encounter while racing. But he thought that ultimately that sort of running decreased your absolute top speeds even though it enabled you to run at a fast pace for an extended time.
2. Time trials were not always the same thing in Lydiard's system and didn't always serve the same purpose. If you were to do one during the Race Coordination phase it would be pretty much like a race, though you'd avoid a fast finish and would pretty much just maintain your overall pace to the end. At other parts of the cycle a time trial would be much more like a tempo run but you would run it over a measured course, or at least over the same course repeatedly, and keep track of times. You'd be hoping that overall you'd be able to cover that course a bit more quickly, though not necessarily on each try.
What really matters what Lydiard thinks ? In every Lydiard sentence to expose his training by his wired physiology we see how ignorant he was from the basic physiology.
Lydiard physilogy ignorance, and anyone that accepts such kind of Lydiard “fuzzology” is as ignorant as Lydiard. world run community shall refuse Lydiard ignorance about this matter what soem experts did refuse long ago.
If we do ONE "very fast, short runs, runs so short that no lactic acid was produced" (JUST ONE) it´s ALACTIC of course. However if WE REAPEAT that same "very short run, so short that no lactic acid was produced" a second time, 3 times, 4 times and we continue on and on it´s not alactic no more but AEROBIC LACTIC. Of course all depends of the interval length duration. Try this and take the lactate, and how much percent the VO2 max aerobic system is used and let know the result.
We know that at 5k pace or 10k pace for 5 or 10k total distance run respectively, the percent of AEROBICS higher than the percent of ANAEROBIC. We all know that in a 5k or 10k speed pace no one gets the vVO2max. pace - what means that the aerobic "tank" doesn´t reach his limit.
However if you run at 12X400m 6X800m 5k pace or 25X400m or 12X800m at 10k pace or , and we know that 10k pace the percent of aerobic is higher than the anaerobic for 25X400m laps or 12X800m but with interval recovery you will last with less lactic than a real 5k or 10k run.
Therefore Lydiard might have that wired physiologic terminology/nomenclature, it really doesn´t matter, it´s not the main problem. The main problem it´s that is was wrong about all that conclusions, and most of the Lydiardists they just repeat that wrong stuff. The Lydiardist got the aerobic phase the anaerobic phase. Please stop that non-sense. For the Lydiardist 20X400m at fast pace is characterized as anaerobic training, and unhappily some others non-Lydiardists they do follow that kind ignorance.
For example intervals at 3/4 Lydiard pace, while being undefined pace it´s surely mostly aerobic, not anaerobic.
It´s hard to debate with people with misunderstand of training methodology.
About Gypsy and some more. Gypsy speaks about what he doesn´t know and this is ignorance. He pretends a career progress as something ideal, quite utopic, and that rarely happens. We have many examples of great runners that for one reason or another they weren´t able to follow a linear progress and a long career. On that every human is different as well. All depends of several circumstances, injuries, profit from the run career if they are professionals etc.
In the case of Carlos Lopes Gypsy and Rekrunner they speak about what they don´t know. In fact Carlos Lopes did a long career because he could be full-time runner only with 29years old ! Before that he needed to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week and he only train once a day. Other determinant reason why Lopes did delay/sustain his career after the 30s it´s because only after the late 70s it´s when he starts to win some money from road and cross competitions. Early he did run as amateur. Then he taught. Now that I make some money why not continue ? This is also the same reason he moved to the marathon. Money…money…money. Another reason is the number of injuries he did. Finnaly another fact it´s that Lopes wanted to win the 10k and the marathon in the Moscow Olympics but he accepts to miss that Olimpics for political reasons.
The he move from amateur to be a full-time professional runner and to teh marathon that where he got more money.
During the alst 2 years of his career – 1984 and 1985 – Lopes did win the equivalent to 300,000 $ US dollars (remember we were in 85) that is 10 times more than from 71 to 83, the first 12 years.
If Carlos did make some money from the start today we will be discuss the short career of Carlos Lpes that so young for that old time age standard did the world record. The reason of his long career wasn´t the training method.
Besides you are funny people, and intelectual dishonest once again. When we debate about training methods, the Lydiardists and Gypsy or Rekrunner and some oteher on this bord you refuse to accept that Lopes did a superior training than the Lydiard one. But when the question is about long career and you discuss with Renato about long career, then you bring the Carlos Lopes example. This is 2 weights and 2 measures, this is intellectual dishonesty once again apart of the unfactual argument.
Antonio,
I wouldn't lump Gypsy & rekrunner together.
Rekrunner has been open & honest ... he seeks understanding ... he is NOT critical of the modern training methodology ... he just want's a better understanding of it.
Gypsy on the other hand "knows" a lot but understands little.
just because sometimes its fun and its also a warmup
Antonio Cabral wrote:What really matters what Lydiard thinks ? In every Lydiard sentence to expose his training by his wired physiology we see how ignorant he was from the basic physiology.
So the greatest coach in distance running to have ever lived is called ignorant by some guy who has a loose understanding of his craft and who plagiarises and fakes his own resume. Madness?
Lydiard physilogy ignorance, and anyone that accepts such kind of Lydiard “fuzzology” is as ignorant as Lydiard. world run community shall refuse Lydiard ignorance about this matter what soem experts did refuse long ago.
So what has Lydiard said exactly. Something like ok first up get to the right level of volume, then add speed to that volume, then add hills to that speed. At some point lactate and the associated feelings and effects start to be observable. So this is something new. Later he did some lactate testing to fine tune his understanding and he spent a little time connecting his findings to the physiological knowledge of the day. As has been said many times before and appears to be generally accepted by most people, what Lydiard did worked, and worked remarkably well. Maybe it was a fluke you seem to be suggesting and he didn't know exactly what he was doing. Or maybe he did. If we assume it worked then all we have to do is connect it to present understandings of physiology. Except we can't because the physiologists can't even agree with themselves.
If we do ONE "very fast, short runs, runs so short that no lactic acid was produced" (JUST ONE) it´s ALACTIC of course. However if WE REAPEAT that same "very short run, so short that no lactic acid was produced" a second time, 3 times, 4 times and we continue on and on it´s not alactic no more but AEROBIC LACTIC. Of course all depends of the interval length duration. Try this and take the lactate, and how much percent the VO2 max aerobic system is used and let know the result.
It appears Arthur used both versions. Firstly, Alactic anaerobic with long rest intervals so the lactic anaerobic system is never entered and secondly, with short rest intervals to promote lactate production in a heavily aerobic environment, like a race would be. The benefit of both is the negative effects of entering the anaerobic zone are eliminated in the former case and heavily mitigated in the latter.
About Gypsy and some more. Gypsy speaks about what he doesn´t know and this is ignorance. He pretends a career progress as something ideal, quite utopic, and that rarely happens. We have many examples of great runners that for one reason or another they weren´t able to follow a linear progress and a long career. On that every human is different as well. All depends of several circumstances, injuries, profit from the run career if they are professionals etc.
The only thing i am suggesting is that there is an ideal and we should at least aim for it. And the ideal is not in your example of no athletes, not in Renato's example of the common three year improvement ceiling, it it more in some of the examples thrown out by a previous poster who was probably you. Athletes competing at two Olympics, having careers of improvement over 7-9 years after reaching world class. This sort of thing.
you refuse to accept that Lopes did a superior training than the Lydiard one. But when the question is about long career and you discuss with Renato about long career, then you bring the Carlos Lopes example. This is 2 weights and 2 measures, this is intellectual dishonesty once again apart of the unfactual argument.
I call you intellectually dishonest and you have no place copycatting that and using it in relation to other people. It only applies to you in this thread although this mysterious jackanory is also upset about something as well. None of this will matter when we do a closed thread anyway, but for this thread - the facts are the facts. Why does modern training fail to improve athletes beyond 3 years. WE need some official studies done so we can start rejecting this approach as fact as possible and get people running for years like they used to in the 70s and 80s.
The problem for you with Lopes is he had a ridiculously long career and he followed Lydiard. In fact your entire country followed Lydiard. Dose it annoy you back at home when you can't convince people to drop Lydiard and go for Antonio instead? Is this the underlying angst you seem to be carrying with you?
rekrunner wrote:
Now you've got me perplexed and confused. In spite of your harsh, undiplomatic assessment of Renato's alleged greedy, short-term and short-lived approach, you still think he scores quite high, and deserves some credit for continued high performances starting the 4th year, in spite of stagnation in development. I guess I need some further clarification on what you want to say.
Let's just look at Antonio and Renato as the two most obvious proponents of the modern approach. Quite a massive difference in understanding between them is there not. Renato is maybe the best example at the moment of the modernist approach and this is why i rank him high. But i have to repeat, we cannot compare this level with the level of Lydiard, they are on different scales of magnitude and importance and we can't afford to be confused about which is the better approach.
Who are these other coaches, and what is the standard scale and what is this different scale? What is it that's happening around 3 years that typically stops development, and how do you overcome that?
The standard scale is for coaches using borrowed knowledge. The other scale is for coaches who have gone and developed a system based on their own self knowledge. The two are not comparable. Around three years is when we see stagnation most commonly occur. Most coaches will concur if they are being honest. I'm not sure how to explain this, but it is basically the blocking of an athletes further potential. It becomes blocked because the athlete has become imbalanced enough to stop forward progress. The athlete becomes imbalanced because the program is imbalanced for him. Training maturity occurs mostly over the first three years and this accounts for some of the performance gains, whilst physical maturity from 18-21 accounts for a lot of the gains in this age range. Coaches can either enhance an athletes potential, degrade an athletes potential or leave it unchanged. It would be nice to see more of the last option occur with coaches of very young athletes and it's unfortunate that most coaches fall into option 2, and actually coach the athlete into an unending plateau or a detraining spiral.
In 2011, world best marathon times dropped by about 2 minutes. Are you saying that with a different, more optimal, patient approach, these times could have dropped even further, say in the low 2:03's, or maybe even break into the 2:02's?
I think even beyond training methodology we have human aspiration. We will always aspire to go beyond what has been done. This is basic human nature. So Geb showed a new potential range and people started thinking about this new range. Then when ideal situations presented themselves, a. in conditions, b. in having a perfect pace maker in Hall and c. in the competition between Mutai and Moses, we say another breakthrough, further stabilising this new level.
gypsy wrote:
[quote]I call you intellectually dishonest and you have no place copycatting that and using it in relation to other people. It only applies to you in this thread although this mysterious jackanory is also upset about something as well. None of this will matter when we do a closed thread anyway, but for this thread - the facts are the facts. Why does modern training fail to improve athletes beyond 3 years. WE need some official studies done so we can start rejecting this approach as fact as possible and get people running for years like they used to in the 70s and 80s. ...
The problem for you with Lopes is he had a ridiculously long career and he followed Lydiard. In fact your entire country followed Lydiard. Dose it annoy you back at home when you can't convince people to drop Lydiard and go for Antonio instead? Is this the underlying angst you seem to be carrying with you?
Hi Gypsy,
The "mysterious" Jackanory here .... Though no more "mysterious" than others who use an "username" here .... (at least I only use one!), & am less mysterious than most in that I have signed some messages off with my real first name.
& I'm NOT "upset" about anything .... I've merely tried to clarify, correct & (where possible) help ... as when I sent you the links to Tom Osler's training ideas.
But honestly, you turn everything on its head .... the world of Gypsy is truely a strange & wonderous place ....
* You still hold on to the claim that Renato's athletes only improve for three years ... despite the tons of evidence provided to the contrary.
* You claim that Carlos Lopes trained the "Lydiard" way ... he did NOT, he trained the "Portuguese way" which is MUCH closer to Renato's methods
* You claim that Antonio is at odds with the Portuguese way ... quite the contrary, Antonio's training is very much based on the "potuguese way" ... really look @ Rui Silva training (something that Antonio has used as a "good model" of the portuguese way) ... it is NOTHING like Lydiard.
You are either deliberately lying or (more likely) you are one very confused individual.
Well... if you say so...
However even with my poor english write, so many posts that i did it would be an exigency that both knew something more than ridiculous contest to my opinion about modern training approach.
Briefly. Let´s imagine ONE individual that you say that "he is NOT critical of the modern training methodology want´s a better understanding of it".
We are discuss about training individualization that Lydiard the man doesn´t respect or very little respect training individualisation. Lydiard says that it doesn´t matter the runner or the distance event, we all need the same kind of aerobic training efforts during the build-up.
I argue against Lydiard training individualisation the schedules of Peter Snell and John Davies. sent me by m., Nobby and where it´s satys that both Peter and John did the same "anaerobic" training precisely, and i did present the 1500m Pekka Vasala training that By rare phenomena of coincidence is equal to the Peter-John 10 years.
What´s the Rekrunner comment ? He say that "I took some anecdotal schedules" as argument. This man got not to be serious.
Finnaly about gypsy the super-paranormal philosopher. He is a lost case and a case of study of dementia as well. I
say something like "the portuguese took some Lydiard and van Aaken influence on the early 70´s to build their own method of the late 70´s early 80s" (not literal but don´t betray the idea). Further up I did explain in detail and everyone that is not ignorant might understand that the portuguese training that I talk about have little with the Lydiard one.
But Gypsy obsession, he interprets and translates my idea to a his new one different and made in opportunism ottal demagogic "the portuguese did learn and follow Lydiard". He is a lost case of dementia and intellectual dishonesty.
Before his I really don´t think that this kind of guy does exist, but just in the virtual world or in the clinic of some hospital for insanity.
Jackanory wrote:
[/quote) You are either deliberately lying or (more likely) you are one very confused individual.
Oh, & I should have added that you've hogged the majority of this thread with your nonsense, & all you have succeeded in doing is DISCREDIT the Lydiard Method ...
a training method that has many strengths, is very applicable for developing athletes, can still be used successfully to generate world class 800m/1500m times BUT is no longer of real value in generating world class marathon times.
Jackanory wrote:Hi Gypsy,
The "mysterious" Jackanory here .... Though no more "mysterious" than others who use an "username" here .... (at least I only use one!), & am less mysterious than most in that I have signed some messages off with my real first name.
i too have only used one handle in this thread. i remember skuj questioned this because sometimes i didn't have my email present. I didn't know why at the time but i know why now. It happens when i witch from chrome to opera and vice versa. Chrome doesnt autotick that box.
& I'm NOT "upset" about anything .... I've merely tried to clarify, correct & (where possible) help ... as when I sent you the links to Tom Osler's training ideas.
This is true, in this case, yet you still have a definite bias towards your preferred approach.
But honestly, you turn everything on its head .... the world of Gypsy is truely a strange & wonderous place ....
it is fun, but i only turn things on their heads when it is required and this isnt one.
* You still hold on to the claim that Renato's athletes only improve for three years ... despite the tons of evidence provided to the contrary.
In fact neither yourself nor anybody else has provided one example, depsite my repeated asking. Have you taken a look yet?
* You claim that Carlos Lopes trained the "Lydiard" way ... he did NOT, he trained the "Portuguese way" which is MUCH closer to Renato's methods
* You claim that Antonio is at odds with the Portuguese way ... quite the contrary, Antonio's training is very much based on the "potuguese way" ... really look @ Rui Silva training (something that Antonio has used as a "good model" of the portuguese way) ... it is NOTHING like Lydiard.
no need to shout, that article clearly states what happened in the broad sense, Portugal was shit, they looked around, they chose Lydiard and implemented his methodology system wide. There were other influences but this was the main one. Antonio's own words show this in that very article.
You are either deliberately lying or (more likely) you are one very confused individual.
I was being confrontational but with a solid foundation for what i was saying, as described in that article. And anything i am confused about i usually don't open my mouth about.
Jackanory wrote:
Oh, & I should have added that you've hogged the majority of this thread with your nonsense, & all you have succeeded in doing is DISCREDIT the Lydiard Method ...
2 points then. Firstly, the space in here is unlimited, feel free to take as much as you want.
[quote[a training method that has many strengths, is very applicable for developing athletes, can still be used successfully to generate world class 800m/1500m times BUT is no longer of real value in generating world class marathon times.[/quote]You sound like an expert, have you spent 20+ years coming to this conclusion yourself, or perhaps this is someone elses opinion?
sorry second point - DISCREDIT - now i'm not sure that is true. Through logical analysis and through connective ideas i feel i have shown flaws in the modern method whilst giving extra support to why the Lydiard method is closer to what might be ideal. Even providing the similarities between Soviet approach and Lyiard approach has been helpful i'm sure.
ps does shouting make it seem more true?
rekrunner wrote:In 2011, world best marathon times dropped by about 2 minutes. Are you saying that with a different, more optimal, patient approach, these times could have dropped even further, say in the low 2:03's, or maybe even break into the 2:02's?
But of course. A more optimal approach would yield a better result by definition alone. But without Hall these times wouldn't have been reached, so the presence of Hall becomes a very large factor in determining performance, as does the fact Mutai and Moses had each other to work off.
All other things being equal, if there was a greater underlying base of conditioning, then performance would be increased.
I used to belive in the Lydiard way, but it must be wrong if Lydiardists need to lie and act like a complete idiot to defend it. Thanks gipsy, to help me make my mind on this. The modern system has a new supporter.
gypsy wrote:
sorry second point - DISCREDIT - now i'm not sure that is true. Through logical analysis and through connective ideas i feel i have shown flaws in the modern method whilst giving extra support to why the Lydiard method is closer to what might be ideal. Even providing the similarities between Soviet approach and Lyiard approach has been helpful i'm sure.
ps does shouting make it seem more true?
So, are you just a hypothetical coach? You claim to have done a lot of coaching, but when can we see the results? The amount of time you have spent on this thread makes me wonder if your time could be better spent doing something worthwhile.
I only have to say that a person like gipsy that call´s a country, like "shit" , loses all the reason, if he have some.
In this question that you are talking about, there´s no doubt that Lydiard is the past.I don´t know any top athlete that follows is method 100% and win medals in major competitions.
Despite of that, some countries like Italy, Spain, and your loved Portuguese achived greatest results with new aproaches,new ideas, etc.
One question: Does any top athlete stands 2\3 months of base\general training without put some specific training, doing only slow run and that kind of stuff that used to work when there was no competition all year around like today?
So glad the pioneering Arthur Lydiard is still able to entertain you all. Kind of like listening to critics debate interpretation of a work of art. The artist has moved on and left his work to speak for him.
rekrunner wrote:
I knew of Brad Hudson, Peter Coe and Jack Daniels, but now I'm ashamed to admit I had to look up who Harry Wilson was.
Eurodonkey: When I say "modern training", it's how Antonio and Renato describe it, with the general, special, and specific training paces. I wasn't sure if Daniels qualified in that sense, as his training paces are linked more to expected paces for different physiological parameters.
I'm lucky enough to be of that age when Brits were good at middle distance, and Harry Wilson was one of several 'great coaches'. Steve Ovett was his most famous product but he coached many, many people including several good friends of mine. However, he was squarely an 800/1500 coach, like Peter Coe, Wilf Paish. Frank Horwill, who sadly passed away two weeks ago, was another big influence.
I have never been a marathon runner and can't recommend any books on it. From what I have read, Canova has brought something fairly new to the event. But within middle distance (800 up to 5000), just about every book apart from the early Lydiard ones stresses staying in touch with speed all year round, and at least 90% of coaches and athletes I know/knew of in the UK have a mixed approach. Rui Silva's training is not surprising (although the consistency and quality is impressive).
Some things I have on my shelf which are all arguably "modern":
Noakes' "Lore of Running" (more of a survey)
"Daniels' Running Formula"
Winning Running by Peter Coe; "Better training for distance runners" by Coe and Martin
"Obsession for running" by Frank Horwill
"Running my way" by Harry Wilson (not a classic, I'll admit, but it tells you what he believed in)
I think Steve Magness' literature survey is probably the most comprehensive starting point out there, and if you look through it, just about everyone was "modern" going back a long, long way.
Interestingly, I think these have applicability for all levels of athlete. To train for a fast event in summer, you need to train over distance slow and under distance fast, and practice the skill of running at race pace, which is NOT inherently easy even for a couple of hundred meters.
For the marathon it's a bit different. Anyone can run at their marathon pace for a few hundred metres. The kind of training Renato is doing to get people down to 2:05 is NOT closely applicable to getting you and your fully-employed, busy clubmates down from 2:45 to 2:40. At the latter level, people are not yet pushing the envelope with volume, and (IMHO) far better off with a steadily increasing volume of very easy running and perhaps two focused quality sessions per week.
Just my nightly rant...