Lydiard Imitations

Antonio,

I grow tired of trying to correct all of your basic misinterpretations and logical fallacies. One of Newton's laws is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Your reactions do not follow Newton's law.

I gave Carlos Lopes as an example of someone with a long career. I did not give any reason for it, but I did suggest Lopes as an example of an ideal path of development (but not attributing it to the training method). As far as I can tell, you actually agree with me that he had a long career, but it was not due to the training method, and it was not an ideal path for development, but merely a by-product of his amateur status when he was young and had to work. I did not attribute it to the training method, but if I did, it would actually contradict gypsy's idea that only Lydiard can give long careers. But I wasn't so much "speaking about it" with gypsy, as trying to find out why gypsy means, and fishing for some good examples to explain his position. Maybe you are right that in fact Carlos Lopes is a bad example, and no one looking for a long career should do it the way he did.

Regarding Lydiard's knowledge of physiology, you seem to place great weight on that, attempting to explain what the terms mean today, or what today's new terms are, when the question is what Lydiard meant when he used the terms. Again, your arguments might be suited for another discussion somewhere else, but you are missing the point here.

In any case, if Lydiard proves one thing, it's that correct physiological knowledge is secondary or maybe even completely irrelevant. Historically, Lydiard developed his training approach the hard way, and then only years later, talked to some scientists who told him what to call these different elements. It was not Lydiard who was wrong about training, but it was the scientists who changed their mind about what to call the physiology. That is why listening to what Lydiard thinks is still relevant.

You seem to place some important weight on your secret training logs of Snell, Davies, and Vasala. First I have to ask, do they require individual training? You failed to say why. Maybe the principles of training individualization was applied, and it turned out there was no obvious reason to change the training from the initial plan. I'm also wondering what Lydiard's actual coaching role was with Vasala 10 years later. I thought he was more like national advisor rather than individual coach. Next, what does Lydiard "the man" and Snell and Davies and Vasala have to do with me interpreting Lydiard "the method" for my individual training situation? Hint, it is irrelevant.

You see, once again, I can only base my conclusions on evidence I have seen. When I read the 1962 book "Run to the Top", which predates 1964 training, and 1974 training (and for that matter, Lydiard's use of physiological terms like "aerobic" and "anaerobic") I see training individualization everywhere, in the aerobic phase, in the anaerobic phase, in the coordination phase, in the schedule examples, in the periodization, etc. What is the importance if you tell me now that you are unable to find it in some specific instances of the training of a few similar world class middle distance athletes, and that you have some secret evidence that Lydiard did not always "practice what he preached"?

After reading the 1962 book, I know how to structure my base training, my training at the track, my interval training, my periodization, and how to use time trials to polish my condition before important races. When I apply the same rules and guidance from the same book, to my 10 year old son, his training will look completely different in almost every respect, due to the application of training individualization principles, rules, and guidance at every phase. This is based on one book, but the 1978 book, the material at the Lydiard foundation, and every discussion here only confirms and reinforces my initial understanding.

So, even in spite of your possession of the actual logs of Snell, Davies, and Vasala, I cannot accept your faulty conclusion that Lydiard "the method" ignores training individualization, when I have already found it everywhere in the books. You are simply looking in the wrong place, and inappropriately generalizing from one specific anecdote.

Regarding the question if Lopes' training is superior to Lydiard's training, I don't reject your answer, but reject the question. Every method can be good or bad, depending on how it is applied to each individual, and how it fits his situation. If I apply Renato's advanced ideas of increasing the volume of intensity, and it doesn't work for me they way Lydiard training did for my marathon, does that mean Renato's training is inferior to Lydiard for the marathon? You see, if the question is wrong, then it doesn't matter if the answer is right. Do you also see how this little anecdote cannot lead to generalized conclusions?

I don't speak only about Boston, but also Chicago, New York, London, Frankfurt, and Berlin.And I think I phrased the question wrong. I'm actually doubting your observation that current African athletes are insufficiently developed, and the existence of a more optimal approach, and the lack of underlying base. How can you say that a longer development would be more optimal than what we see now? How can you suggest that some, or most, or all of the athletes winning the majors in 2011 lack sufficient underlying base of conditioning? In 2007, the average of the top 10 marathon times was 2:06:43. In 2008, it dropped significantly to 2:05:40, and in 2011, the average was 2:05:00. Are you seriously suggesting that by taking a more ideal approach to long term development, we can increase the underlying base even more, and this will lead to even better performances?

gypsy wrote:

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.

Newton law ?

At the level of debate, ideas, opinions, concepts, ther´s always pros and one cons and both might be both solid arguments. Therefore each individual shall decide and judge by himself in conscience, based in what he knows at the actual moment, and that´s all. The ultimate stance it´s not action or reaction, it´s choice and decision among alternatives. Some people have the quality to change and after deep analysis one considers the argument of the other as valid as changes, moves, adjust his own pre-concept to the other gain of knowledge. Some people do stay in the cepticism and they don´t accept what the other might say, nd the don´t change.

I´m no special interest that you adhere to my training idea. I´m not concern that you think that my opinion is considered misinterpretation or don´t.

On this Lydiardist threads I just express what I think about Lydiardism, and it´s quite irrelevant if you accept, if you agree with or you don´t or if you want to correct me. What really matters it´s that I was closer than you but some people nd some facts make me change to what I think that´s better training. I might change again and again but I willn´t go back, I will just go ahead. For me the Lydiardism it´s to go back to something worst than my training and I want to go ahead for something better if that will exist.

We both can spend all the time with training debate, but at some point we need to decide and choose, take decisions about all our options. Our early/past choices, among the known alternatives, and on every subject, it´s the main body of our actual pre-concepts. The fact that you (rekrunner) and I (Antonio), over the past we did built very different pre-concepts about the same issues of subject, the distance run, which the training methodology is one, it´s what results in our disagreement. I´m very lucky never been a Lydiard. Actually to move from what i´m to be a Lydiard would mean a total reverse in my training understand, would mean training involution, instead of training evolution.

Like or not, i´m the responsible to open the Lydiard debate on this board from Lydiard consideration that only a few did shared. Like or you don´t, I did open a big gap, like the black whole in the Lydiard paradigm.

For example, you always ask for articles, books something material to support and source of my training approach. For me this is not interesting, because the “composite” and the “aggregate” that is my training approach is built from 40 years of information and systematize and classify that information that comes from many sources: from my personal experience, from my trial-and- error empiric method, from teachings from seminars, conferences, from the coaches and runners I talk, resuming from every kind of source I got. With this i´m able to let us know my training to the ones that are interest to know and also to the ones I coach, what is very important for me.

On that context, books, or articles aren´t the essential part of the material of my training approach. Of cousre that i read some books and articles that did influence my training approach. However, most of the books, or I don´t have it, often from one book of… let´s say… 300 pages I took one or two or just a couple good vital information, and I read so may things actually don´t know where I read it. However everything is on my mind. But don´t ask me about in what books I did read, or what is the book to support my opinion.

I hope that wit this my long paragraphs you might understand that the main reason to what you think that my misinterpretation, in my opinion that is based in the fact that we both did built very different pre-concepts about training and life experience eventually that in many aspects that is totally different. You want books, that I don´t, you give credit tio Lydiard that I don´t, you follow the logic of debate that I don´t.

What is curious, it´s that I think about you what you think about me. I try to correct your logical fallacies and I grow tired as well. Sometimes after that I did reply with sustain argument for me, an argument for me that is decisive, but in your next posts you get back to the same problem, that I did answer many times with the same reasons to contest my Lydiard critic to what I did comment in detail. I see you don´t accept my opinion. What I might do ? Imagine that I write an equation and that I solve it. Then you ask me where are the books of mathematics that you based the solution of the problem.

You see me as I don´tt act accord the Newton law. I see you as living in a impenetrable iron curtain made of your pre-concepts that you can´t accept most of what I say relate to Lydiard training.

I got my pre-concepts, but at the level of change and decision, if we act in coherence ther´s not the fear to make the mistake that is to change our pre-concepts, our pre-concepts might be mutable. But I see you as a person with immutable or fixed concepts. When mr. HRE says to Renato (not literally but it´s the main idea) “I will not change my opinion” what´s this ? It´s one individual that is not dynamic and lives in that same impenetrable iron curtain that willn´t change either. To that one ther´s no solution. The best I can do to him is read their posts and if he wants he can read my posts. You act as one person that no one argument will move you from what you trust.

I want to bring a few examples to what I want to say about you and your fixed pre-concepts that sometimes it´s totally inconsequent.

I say something about my own training opinion. Your normal reaction it´s to ask me about where is written, or in what book, what source whatever. Often you get back and ask me once twice, many times the same question, you ask for book, book, book if you please. What´s this your ask ? It´s a your pre-concept. If I got no book or written source to quote or biography, you can´t accept my conclusion. Why ? Your pre-concept that every correct idea might be support from anything written. I see you that if I would tell you the book, after that you read it you will ask “wher´s the books from where the author of this book took that conclusions ?”. This is a your and mine or everyone impossible task. Try to understand. If someone takes something from a write source, and that one from another written source, on and on, ther´s a moment on that get back ther´s no more written source. The old books of the world, like Mahabharata, what´s written there is not take from another written source. So, at the limit, the written source means nothing at all. Only the fool thinks that because someone else did write one book he got to be better about that subject. Think about Livingston book for example. Do you really think because he writes many beautiful things, some correct things about Lydiard training eventually that is the prove that Lydiard training works find, or that Lydiard training is correct ? Do you really think that because the Lydiard Foundation got one institutional organization (that I respect) that that Lydiard training is better or worse because of that organization diffuse ? Do you really think that because some that you agree and you don´t see on them the kind of misunderstand that you see on me that i´m they re right and that i´m wrong ? MIght be you think all that, but then you are wrong.

Books, books, books. But you are the same person that when I present something factual that is written, and that I don´t don´t the source you say “it´s anedoctal”. I did present the schedules of Snell, Davies, both gave me by mr. Nobby. I hope that you don´t doubt about the honesty of mr. Nobby about what is written there. I don´t. If mr. Nobby gave me something it´s because it´s undeniable source to trust. The I use this source of material do open the debate, that instead of speculation it´s written and proved source. You say it´s anecdotal “source” and some other say it´s not truth that Snell and Davies did the same training precisely. For em it´s the proe that Lydiard doesn´t respect training individualization. As you know Lydiard didn´t reveal many schedules of their runners (the ones he coached directly), so from that one’s of Davies, Snell and Vasala we can take some decisive conclusions about how Lydiard the man did coach, what we don´t with pathetic schedules, schedules fo speculations of any Lydiadist that at first glance I see I doesn´t respect the main Lydiard training, the training suggested by Lydiard the man himself.

rekrunner wrote:

So, even in spite of your possession of the actual logs of Snell, Davies, and Vasala, I cannot accept your faulty conclusion that Lydiard "the method" ignores training individualization, when I have already found it everywhere in the books. You are simply looking in the wrong place, and inappropriately generalizing from one specific anecdote.

You seem to place some important weight on your secret training logs of Snell, Davies, and Vasala. First I have to ask, do they require individual training? You failed to say why.

Do you know what´s an impossibility ? The case of Snell and Davies it´s just IMPOSSIBLE that both individuals did the same training for 6 weeks and it´s been respected the training individualization. Snell and Davies, ith different training age, different training background and profile, different performances, different weight and tall, different run talent, one faster (Snell), another slower (Davies), one that did want to compete on the 800m and 1500m/mile on the same olympics and his best performance ever remains 800m, and the other that is main event is 1500m/mile and later he did move to 5000m/3miles it´s just IMPOSSIBLE that both individuals did the same training for 6 weeks and it´s been respected the training individualization.

When it was been ask to mr. Nobby why Snell did win the 1500m and Davies was “just” 3rd on that same run, he answers that Snell is faster than Davies. Therefore Snell and Davies would require a different anaerobic phase as well as a different build up aerobic phase that Arthur Lydiard does repeat on and on in many books that the marathon build up phase shall be the same for every runner. This doesn’t respect training individualization at all.

Now, 10 years later, another runner comes to NZ to be coached by Arthur in 74. He was been injured, he did win the 72 1500m in the Olympics. He is from Finland. 10 years later it´s a great coincidence that Arthur did the same 6 weeks of training that he did to Snell and Davies in 64.

No way he respects training individualisation.

You can quote what you want from books, this is all “fantasy to me”, and nonsense. Facts are facts, Lydiard doesn´t respect training individualization, Might be you respect with your son, might be he respects training individualization with the advice he did to HRE or Nobby, or on their conferences, but facts are facts. but Lydiard didn´t respect training individualization with Olympic runners that he coached himself.

I really don´t care if you accept or you don´t. What is the fact is that he didn´t respect the training individualization at all.

Antonio,

I really don't mind that you have a different opinion. If you think Lydiard was great in his day, but we've advanced since then, I understand that point of view and accept that. I don't deny that you have your own training experience, and that Renato has his own training experience, and have learned a few more things either by experimenting yourselves, or talking to others, or reading articles, and gaining their experience. I genuinely appreciate the insight you've provided into modern methods and concepts, not to mention intermittent training, and the two kinds of runners thread with Lopes and Mamede examples.

And I don't have a single, simple, preconceived opinion that could reasonably be labelled Lydiard, or modern or anything else. Rather I'm developing a library of training concepts for the many different situations that may come up during the course of my own training and coaching experiences, quite far away from Olympic and World championship competitions.

One of my main problems with you is that you pretend to be this single champion leading the fight against Lydiard, but then say many things that make me wonder how well you understand what you are criticizing, or if you understand what Lydiardists say to you. You think Lydiardists are saying "Lydiard method is superior than Antonio's method" when most often they are saying "That's not Lydiard -- here's what he really means ...". You think that any possible response in the negative must mean disagreement with your training ideas, when often they are just correcting your misstatements about the specific Lydiard element you criticized. Any training debate you initialize is seriously hampered and undermined by your misrepresentations of your main opponent.

For example, you recently said "intervals at 3/4 Lydiard pace, while being undefined pace it´s surely mostly aerobic, not anaerobic". But:

- with Lydiard, we never speak of 3/4 PACE, but 3/4 EFFORT -- of course it's an undefined pace, because we are going for a desired effort

- fractional efforts make no sense until you specify a distance

So, if you understand fractional efforts at all, a 3/4th effort for 800m repetitions is most surely ANAEROBIC, while a 3/4th effort for 3000m repetitions is most surely AEROBIC.

As much as fractional efforts are confusing to people, saying "3/4 Lydiard pace" is completely meaningless, let alone mostly aerobic.

And I'm not so sure that any kind of interval training would ever be done at 3/4th effort.

This makes me think that your comprehension of Lydiard is not so deep.

Another example: you want to say things like "Lydiard didn't practice specificity." I think to myself, "Huh? That's the primary feature of the coordination phase -- combine all of the development elements together in actual race conditions. No one else was doing this when Murray Halberg upset everyone in a 6 mile race creating a 70 yard gap in the space of 1 lap. Lydiard made specificity fashionable at a time when the rest of the world was interval training." Again I begin to wonder how well you really understand this method you want to criticize.

Now you want to say that Lydiard didn't respect training individualization for Snell, Davies, and Vasala. Regardless of what he advised for them for the last 6 weeks in 1964 and 1974, I read his 1962 and 1978 books. I find training individualization everywhere in his books. It's in these fuzzy words you admit you don't understand, like "comfortably hard", and "best aerobic effort", and "do as many reps until you get fatigued". It's in the time trials which help you fine tune your racing condition. There is no doubt for me that the training I create for myself, based exclusively on the guidelines contained in his books, will not look like Snell or Davies or Vasala or Halberg or Julian or Nobby or HRE or HRE's sone or my son. You want to convince me what Lydiard "the man" didn't do for his athletes in 1964 and 1974. But I read something else specifically applicable to every individual's training in his books which contradicts your conclusions. Sorry for you but I cannot accept that you claim something doesn't exist when I already found it.

I can accept that the logs you have from Nobby are authentic, but I cannot accept that you draw conclusions from these logs that contradict my conclusions from reading Lydiard books.

My other main problem with you is that you often don't seem to understand what I say, or maybe don't bother to read it, or you confuse me with other people. I often have to re-express myself in different ways. I say something fairly harmless and non-controversial, like "do you mean long careers like Carlos Lopes or Geb?", and for some reason, you accuse me of speaking about things I don't know (yet somehow agreed with me anyway), and being intellectually dishonest and using "2 weights and 2 measures". Over the course of your long rants, it seems you attribute things to me, that were actually said by gypsy, or HRE, or Wetcoast. I don't agree with gypsy that only Lydiard gives long careers and Renato burns out all his athletes. Giving the example of Lopes (and Geb BTW) actually contradicts gypsy, and supports Renato, as they are not Lydiard trained, and their training resembles Renato's more than Lydiard. Yet you called me intellectually dishonest for using these examples to support Lydiard. You conclude things from me like I cannot accept that maybe Lopes had a superior training than a Lydiard one, in spite of my repeated insistence that I don't make, or care to make, these kinds of judgements. In my opinion, the best training is the one that meets the needs and expectations of the athlete in question.

Why do I ask for books? Because, besides you and Renato, no one else here is talking about modern methods with any level of detail. And to be frank, English is your second language. You say things like "exigency" and "resistance index", which take time and energy to figure out what you really mean to say, and may not result in a 100% success rate. I want to read something comprehensive and complete and coherent, without having to guess what strange synonyms mean, or wonder about misspellings or bad grammar.

On the one hand, you criticize Lydiardists for not breaking out of their preconceptions, yet, as far as I can tell, the only possible way to do it, if you aren't a professional coach attending seminars and interacting with other coaches as your primary job on a regular basis, is to wait one piece at a time in the letsrun forums for Renato to give us some practical experience in fairly good, yet fractured "English as a second language" English. If that's the best mechanism to the public, then it should be no mystery as to way modern training is not popular among participants in an English speaking forum. I recall a recent attempt to collect a bunch of ideas for Renato's training methods sourced from a few letsrun threads, into a single coherent document, and it completely missed training circuits. Now look what Renato says -- in the last 10 years his approach is 50% different. Imagine I started collecting a few pieces from 10 years ago, and a few pieces from now, and try to put them together without understanding what changed and why. Putting all the ideas together in a single book creates a single, complete, consistent and coherent reference. Writing this book in plain English is the best way to spread the message to most of the letsrun forum readers, including many of the Lydiardists you would like to convert. Lydiard understood this, and wrote a 1962 book after his initial 1960 Olympic success. That's maybe a main reason why he's still so popular today.

If a book on modern training doesn't yet exist, in plain English, then don't blame me for not breaking out of my preconceived shell. As a training guide for the developing masses, I can only recommend books like Lydiard and Daniels and Pfitzinger and Horwill and Coe and even Matt Fitzgerald, as they are complete and comprehensive and coherent and self consistent, even if they may be inferior in some respect.

On your last post you do so long and dense comments I I need several posts to answer you. I will try several posts, so please don´t reply me until I say I finish.

This is my main aspect of debate disagreement with you and some others when i posts about Lydiard criticism and you reply neame my own training or Renato training whatsoever.

When I comment on Lydiard I don´t need to have my own training, or name no other one concretely, or to establish a side-by-side with Lydiard an d every other training. The Lydiard analysis and the Lydiard comment shall be made by relate the Lydiard training to well known training methodology, some principles. I don´t need (and you don´t need as well) to confront Lydiard with any other training to get a rich conclusion if Lydiard is adequate, if Lydiard is in agreement or don´t with the rich training methodology. This was been one of the problems of the Lydiardism (some of them eventually not all). The problem of the Lydiardism it´s that they say (and you either you say) that it seems I don´t know Lydiard training that I miss some Lydiard knowledge. However the typical Lydiardist (and you) seems to know everything about every other training method. I´ve seen and I did read many Lydiardists to comment on other training rather than the Lydiard one. For example When you say something about my training it´s because you think you know. Ok you are not a typical Lydiardist. But when someone say something about Carlos Lopes, does he knows everything about Carlos Lopes training ? When Lydiard comments about Carlos Lopes training did he knew about Lopes training very well ?

It´s a mistake and something that I refuse that to comment on Lydiard I need to know everything, I can comment Lydiard by general universal accepted training methodology only if you stand the Lydiard debate Lydiard training straight. If you eventually you want to ask about my training this is a different subject, that i don´t accept that be done on the same thread that the main issue is the Lydiard debate,

There, it´s a mistake and quite nonsense to comment my opinion about Lydiard by my training, Renato training, Pat training, Gersheler training, whatsoever. It happens that i´m a coach I did coach thousand of runners but I might be just one methodologist specialist and I might got no my one training method or not be a coach or not follow no specific training method. However I can still comment on Lydiard or every other systematized training method with the use of the rich principles of training methodology. Of course that sometimes it´s easy the resource of real facts, examples, or to name coaches or runners and their own training , to use the training methods to illustrate and exemplify what we want to say. But it´s not correct to systematically ask for training alternatives or ask for training methods better than the one we are debate. For instance when i as a critic or commentator I say that Dan Ritz did a poor run on that day, I don´t need to be able to run faster than Ritz, or I don´t need to know how Ritz can run faster. It might be, but it´s not necessary. In the same logic, the critic of art that says one landscape of a certain painter is not good and he says why in his opinion , the critic of art doesn´t need to be able to be a painter, or that artist painter to be criticize and commented by an artist expert (a curator for example) that painter doesn´t need to be related or compared to anyone other of other artist.

Therefore if you want a serious debate with me about Lydiard, get out my training or Renato training whatever training from the Lydiard debate, and when I want (if you want) do debate my training, i´m ready, but just to debate my training straight without relate it to Lydiard. My Lydiard comments shall be done by relate Lydiard to the training methodology, which is not a particular training but universal training methodology, it doesn´t belongs to anyone coach but is human patrimony of running methodology, universal knowledge.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Another example: you want to say things like "Lydiard didn't practice specificity." I think to myself, "Huh? That's the primary feature of the coordination phase -- combine all of the development elements together in actual race conditions. No one else was doing this when Murray Halberg upset everyone in a 6 mile race creating a 70 yard gap in the space of 1 lap. Lydiard made specificity fashionable at a time when the rest of the world was interval training." (/quote]

"Lydiard made specificity fashionable at a time when the rest of the world was interval training"

That's a really interesting & profound observation.

Too much of this thread has been Lydiard versus "modern" methodology, as if they were 2 diametrically opposed methods/systems.

Apart from one method being linear (Lydiard) as opposed to non-linear .... the building blocks are fairly common ... it's how they are put together that's at issue.

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

For example, you recently said "intervals at 3/4 Lydiard pace, while being undefined pace it´s surely mostly aerobic, not anaerobic". But:

- with Lydiard, we never speak of 3/4 PACE, but 3/4 EFFORT -- of course it's an undefined pace, because we are going for a desired effort

- fractional efforts make no sense until you specify a distance

So, if you understand fractional efforts at all, a 3/4th effort for 800m repetitions is most surely ANAEROBIC, while a 3/4th effort for 3000m repetitions is most surely AEROBIC.

As much as fractional efforts are confusing to people, saying "3/4 Lydiard pace" is completely meaningless, let alone mostly aerobic.

And I'm not so sure that any kind of interval training would ever be done at 3/4th effort.

This makes me think that your comprehension of Lydiard is not so deep.

First my comment it´s that every intelligent human being shall not accept such undefined impressive pace percent, because 2 main reasons. The first one is that Lydiard, or no one else was able yet to define that pace percent like ¾ etc. Pace got to be something very precise and accurate in every training method consideration. I understand that somewhere, somehow everybody that follows the distance training approach got some trainings, some workouts that is not important or interesting to run by accurate pace control but rather pace by feeling (feeling based).

Undefined subjects and undefined issues is the most well know strategy to lie, to catch, to be inconsistent, and run away from the facts and reality. Imagine one thief. When he was asked what he did that day ? Where is was at that time of the day ? If he enters on that apartment that he took the money robbery. To everything he asks with an undefined answer. No way we got a definitive conclusion by our. Feeling-base and response regulated was been the greatest Lydirdist alibi to avoid critic to what it´s done, how is done. It´s an alibi to run away from the evidence ther´s no training individuality. Training individuality is a norm, it´s not to let everyone run by feeling at each individual feeling. Therefore ¾ of pace I use it to illustrate about the undefined that is Lydiard training as well as what is the inconsistency to consider ¾ pace part of the Lydiard anaerobic phase. This is nothing but Lydiard ignorance. He was a individual genius that took most from his own experience and trial and error, but to think that from his own individual master knowledge anyone can take and build an universal method it´s a panacea. His training skill and genius died with him and it´s and can´t be transmit by learn how Lydiard did. It´s why the schedules he did that we got access are so important.

Concretely about my comment on ¾ pace. I don´t know what´s ¾ pace precisely. No one knows, Lydiard didn´t know either or he would say what´s that kind of paces are all about. However one thing we know. Be ¾ of pace the pace from 3000m to marathon is mostly aerobic, not anaerobic. I got tired of imprecise Lydiard terminology. It´s that what I think Renato want to mean by the misunderstand what´s aerobic and anaerobic from Lydiard, that is not the same universal accepted.

It´s ok, who wants accept this wired Lydiard method terminology. But I don´t want to accept. But you and some more are the ones that comment on the “resistance”, one world that in every run terminology is the correct word with a precise meaning and precise definition. Further up I will show you that “resistance” is the correct words to define accurately what I want to mean. What is not correct is the Lydiard training meaning of “fast” or “anaerobic”, it´s not the correct lexicon relate to the distance run terminology and it´s not correct relate to distance training methodology.

Again. Despite 3/4th effort is something undefined, for 3000m repetitions and longer is most aerobic.

However Lydiard and the Lydiardists do that ¾ pace on what they name anaerobic phase.

But ¾ of effort of 800m pace is AEROBIC EITHER. You need to understand that the workout of ¾ of 800m pace it´s not to run several 800m intervals at ¾ of 800m pace. It´s to run 200m or 300m or 400m sets at ¾ of 800m pace with quite complete interval recovery (the Lydiard way). Therefore it´s aerobic pace mostly.

I guess that is your comprehension of training methodology that makes you think that you miss some Lydiard inconsequence.

Jackanory wrote:

Apart from one method being linear (Lydiard) as opposed to non-linear .... the building blocks are fairly common ... it's how they are put together that's at issue.

Mr. Renato Canova says something that i agree, One little diference in 1000m intervals of about 5 seconds (7 seconds by mile) fast or slow, makes that workout totally different.

But you, that you undertand that liner and non-linear is soemthing diffrent for a season, for a entire career, you still think that basically every training is the same. To do hills or don´t do, to do long runs or don´t, to use one single season peak or 2 or 3, to run more or less mileage, to respect training individuality or you don´t, to compete often or don´t, to do LT runs or don´t, it´s all fairly common for you ?

Read me next posts i might prove that different trainig organization and teh use of diffrent trainig variables can lead to total different training metho with diffrent training eficiency.

Antonio,

2 things .....

Firstly, your criticism of undefined pace is valid ....

If Lydiard was present on the day (say with Snell) he could have directed Snell to run "faster" or "slower" to get the desired pace .... but for someone interpreting the schedules, the odds are that they would be training at the wrong pace .... 3/4 effort for one athlete may well be interpreted differently by another. .... The modern method of precisely specifying the effort pace (e.g. & 95% of target 5K pace, or whatever) is clearly superior as it is much less likely to be misinterpreted.

Secondly, you are right to emphasise (as I have already stated in previous posts) .... 3000m pace & above is mainly AEROBIC in nature .... Gypsy & others claim that the modern methodology is too intense (by which they have stated "anaerobic") to be sustainable / developmental .... but for those athletes of Renato's focusing on distances of 5K & above, they do very little training that could be classified as "anaerobic"

Keep up the good work .... this is really providing some much needed clarity.

You misunderstand me Antonio.

The "building blocks" are much like the list of 24 training variables you provided a few pages back (that I described as the "ingredients") .... training variables that Lydiard himself would probably have recognised as variables within his own schedules.

How you then create the training (pudding) (i.e. the recipe) will vary from one coach to another .... it's not a simple Lydiard v "modern" ... the best chefs experiment with the ingredients available to them .... the best coaches do likewise ... how the dish is then appreciated is a matter of individual taste.

Antonio, you are my favorite lunatic and I mean that in a good way. You got the passion. You remind me of my coach as a young man only, incredibly, you are even more verbose:)

I invite Gypsy to look at the results of Dubai Marathon, particularly what Lydia Cheromei is able to do in the field of ladies. Because I burn the athletes in very short time with the intensity, everybody can see, on 27th Jan, how can run an athlete that won medals in World Junior Championships... 20 YEARS AGO !

May be to know athletics (not methodology only, but the ATHLETES too) is not very easy for people not in this world, and when I read some comments about top runners that I know very well (or I coach) from people that don't know anything about their life, their problems, their character, their family, their career, I ask myself "Why these people don't learn that for speaking about something we have to know, for knowing we need to be informed, and for being informed we need to have the WILL to be informed. When somebody want to speak about something he doesn't know, can say stupidities only, that is what normally happens".

I have been travlling in Australia and our South Island but have tried to follow this as best I can. I won't get into the "To's and Fro's" on everything here but one thing does stick in my craw. Arthur may have given Snell and Davies the same training in 1964 BUT John lived 140 miles away in Tokoroa (near where I am now) and trained with a bunch of very keen guys who were not scared of hard work, one of them was Mike Ryan .. who went on to get the Bronze medal in the 1968 Oly Marathon.

I can recall (and maybe even still have somewhere) John talking about how Arthur wanted him to do Hill work .. so he took John all round Auckland to where the various athletes were doing their sessions .. Arthur said .. watch, learn and go back to Tokoroa and apply this to your training on a hill there. Now Tokoroa is a totally different place to Urban Auckland. Thousand of Kilometers of Pine Forest and fantastic Pumice surfaced roads to run on ... Lots of "Nasty" hills .. so John worked out what and how he would do his Hill training ... Specific to the environment he lived in, with the athletes he trained with. He may have gone up to Auckland at various times to check in with Arthur .. But the bulk of his work was in Tokoroa .. I will be "Cheeky" here and say .. this could be applying the Principle of "Individualisation" of Training ...

Te,He,He,He .. Anyone want a copy of an "Original" ... "Run to the Top" .. 50 years old .. this year .. email me I have a copy available .. Great the old man is still causing "Controversy" ....

rekrunner wrote:

I don't speak only about Boston, but also Chicago, New York, London, Frankfurt, and Berlin.

And I think I phrased the question wrong. I'm actually doubting your observation that current African athletes are insufficiently developed, and the existence of a more optimal approach, and the lack of underlying base. How can you say that a longer development would be more optimal than what we see now? How can you suggest that some, or most, or all of the athletes winning the majors in 2011 lack sufficient underlying base of conditioning? In 2007, the average of the top 10 marathon times was 2:06:43. In 2008, it dropped significantly to 2:05:40, and in 2011, the average was 2:05:00. Are you seriously suggesting that by taking a more ideal approach to long term development, we can increase the underlying base even more, and this will lead to even better performances?

I'm talking about a fairly big picture as well. You truly are enjoyable to debate with. You spin me out with your logical argumentation skills. I am wondering your about your background, study/work etc. Do you mind sharing?

The balance between burn and soothe is a delicate one if we want to forge ahead with maximum efficiency. Same in life - we overdo the effort, we strain too much too often, and we become burned out.

If we are focused on aerobic power then this is where the main development will lie, and the power side of the equation begins to outstrip the capacity side of the equation. When it outstrips too far, we are in essence 'burning' the athlete. When they remain in balance we see pleasing results. When capacity is overmphasised we have a safe situation but not a competitive situation, at least in comparison to oneself. As Buddha said under the Bodhi tree, upon hearing a master lutist explain to his student how to tighten the strings - too tight and it will break, too loose and it won't play. If we wind an athlete up too tight they will break (or burn); if leave them too loose and they wont play (be competitive).

Utilising another duality, we can look at the modern approach versus a Lydiard approach in terms of the 'type' of information available. Modern is scientifically driven and is precise in creating distinctions and boundaries within this specific (although broadly used) language. Lydiard is experientially driven and is precise in creating distinctions and boundaries within common everyday language; we could call it a 'folk' language. You could say that one is determined by the intellect whereas the other is determined by the intuition. Bruce Lee talks about this distinction and there is even a video of it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSKL1Ph0eQc&feature=related

So when i look at this Modern approach i see too much 'mechanical man' going on. The unnaturalness of the approach needs to be tempered with more naturalness.

So when we look at your statement about underlying base i realise we cannot make generalisations. To say every athlete 'in their situation' would do better with an increased underlying base is a fiction. To say 'most' would is probably a more accurate statement.

There is a problem which i opened up above. Balance/Imbalance. Too much LSD and what happens? A very safe training environment but one not suited to exploring ones 'full' potential. Too much power work and what happens? Injury, stagnancy, decline, premature retirement, but along the way a very competitive situation. Neither is the best option for realising ones full potential, so a combination of the two is required and i guess coaches spend a lot of time defining precisely what the best combination is. My assertion is that sufficient underlying condition, if it is in fact ever reached, degrades without maintenance and degrades more quickly whilst power work is also being done.

Looking at the rate of improvement in the marathon. What are the variables often discussed and their relative role in the situation? We have human aspiration and improved training methods as the two main ones. We could also add the fact that marathon might have been soft until Geb broke into a new range. Personally i feel this situation is more of the fact it was soft and now there is a mental breakthrough and the athletes are presently 'filling the gap'. No disrespect to Hall but if he can run 204 then Kenyan/Ethiopian will break 2 hours in a few years.

Kim,

I emailed you. I will take it. Remember you sold me the Run with Lydiard book about 6 years ago or so?

Ok looks like Antonio has suckered in some more people. 3000 Lydiard-basing posts later and he is still has no life.

Hey Antonio,

Here are some basics for you. Should help you to understand. Have the whine after reading:

http://athleticsillustrated.com/editorial/lydiard-basics/

Correction: "Lydiard-bashing"

Wetcoast wrote:

Kim,

I emailed you. I will take it. Remember you sold me the Run with Lydiard book about 6 years ago or so?

i emailed him too Chris. I offered him anything except a body part. Care to up my offer :)

Kim Stevenson wrote:

I Arthur may have given Snell and Davies the same training in 1964 BUT John lived 140 miles away in Tokoroa (near where I am now) and trained with a bunch of very keen guys who were not scared of hard work, one of them was Mike Ryan .. who went on to get the Bronze medal in the 1968 Oly Marathon.

Might be that Snell and Davies lived distant and didn´t train together most of the time.

But on the 1964 mr. Nobby sent me that´s Snell way to Tokyo olympics, on the "10 week Lydiard anaerobic phase" somewhere on the text says something about Snell workouts like "done with John Davies" and "Davies did the same schedule that Snell". It´s not just the same workouts done by Snell and Davies, it´s done on the very same day on the very same track. Ok ? !

However for what i want to prove, if they did the same schedule on distant places eventually, this still proves i´m right with my argument about that Lydiard didn´t no training individualization at all.

Also about the fact that Lydiard said or write something that we merely might consider training individualisation, as we all might know - and mr. Nobby would agree - that Lydiard said many things he never did, and did many things he never get out of privacy, such a kind of megalomanic attitude, what i think it´s a psychic temper of some genial individuals that Lydiard was one.