Lydiard Imitations

Wetcoast wrote:

You have got to be kidding, right?

Look at the original post and tell me you are kidding.

Without this one man wrecking crew bent on bashing Lydiard there would be no 57 page threads. There would be no so-called, "Lydiardists". There would be no insults.

This, like many other threads is supposed to be about discussing Lydiard.

The man clearly has nothing going on at home.

And to tell me that it is comments like mine that cause this. Holy cow. Listen, you haven't seen the other multi-page threads on Lydiard. There are many, all with the very same recurring theme: A lonely, attention seeking man in Europe with no life, getting his attention by bashing others.

This is a bloody joke.

Calm down Christopher!

The absurdity of your position is encapsulated in your "this thread is supposed to be about discussing Lydiard" .... BUT ... when the discussion includes some criticism (some valid, some not) of the Lydiard Methodology you want to throw out the critics rather than engage in rational debate.

Antonio is entitled to his opinion (like everyone else).... if you disagree, then counter his arguments.

Discussing Lydiard should not be "praising" Lydiard but examining the effectiveness of his Methodology.

oops let's try again ....

JR ... you certainly don't raise the average IQ on this thread.

If you've read any of my posts you will know not to call me a Lydiardist ...

I'm not wedded to Lydiard or the "modern" methodology or any other methodology .... I look at each in turn & evaluate what is "good" & what is "not so good" within each method.

Rekrunner made an observation (Lydiard co-ordination training was event specific) ... & on reflection, I can see much merit in this view.

You on the other hand think (stupidly) that "specificity" must be about "intervals" ... wrong! ... specificity is about 2 things ... race pace AND race distance ... the closer you are to both, the more specific the training is.

The most specific training for a 5K is a 5K Time-Trial run at target race pace.

I am calm.

You are incorrect in your assertion about "praising is discussing".

Clearly you are not aware of the vastness of this man's pursuit.

Its quite sad.

rekrunner wrote:

Lydiard made specificity fashionable

Jackanory wrote:

specificity is about 2 things ... race pace AND race distance ... the closer you are to both, the more specific the training is.

Bob Schul ran at RACE PACE and RACE DISTANCE much more than Lydiard. In fact, Lydiard said that Interval trained runners RACED TOO MUCH! Lydiard was wrong?

Now you are trying to say that Lydiard training was more specific. How funny. So 22 mile runs at 6:30 or 7 minute pace were specific to 5k at 4:24 pace (Halberg) how exactly?

J.R. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Lydiard made specificity fashionable

Jackanory wrote:

specificity is about 2 things ... race pace AND race distance ... the closer you are to both, the more specific the training is.

Bob Schul ran at RACE PACE and RACE DISTANCE much more than Lydiard. In fact, Lydiard said that Interval trained runners RACED TOO MUCH! Lydiard was wrong?

Now you are trying to say that Lydiard training was more specific. How funny. So 22 mile runs at 6:30 or 7 minute pace were specific to 5k at 4:24 pace (Halberg) how exactly?

Again, you exhibit your ignorance with each word you type.

I never said that Lydiard training was "more" specific ... I merely agreed with rekrunner that the "time-trials" in the co-ordination phase of Lydiard training was "specific" for want of a better description .... I never mentioned the Long Run.

Look at Renato's training programmes .... 50% of the training mileage is "regeneration" training .... much slower than race pace.

Do you want to argue with Renato that his training methodology is not specific?

[quote]Wetcoast wrote:

Clearly you are not aware of the vastness of this man's pursuit. (quote]

What I am aware of is the enlightened contributions that Antonio has made on various threads ....

* Two types of Runners

* Intermittent Training

* Summer of Antonio

Very detailed and clear explanation of his prefered training method.

I don't necessarily agree with his views on Lydiard ... but I defend his right to make his views known ... I thought America was in favour of "free speech"?

rekrunner wrote:

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

Jackanory wrote:

I never said that Lydiard training was "more" specific ... I merely agreed with rekrunner

Okay, I vowed and declared I would not get into this. But here goes. just looking at Antonio's reply to my post .. which I don't entirely disagree with knowing Arthur .. However... I have had some thoughts, working with people of different cultures, I note there can be a 'different" interpretation on things. Just because most of us here come from a "European" based background does not mean we think and interpret alike. Example : Gypsy and I come from and Australian/New Zealand background and this is a culture of what we call "battlers" .. or pioneers (In US terms) we had to make our way in these countries or die .. this all in the last 150 years . a "culture" developed .. we call it ANZAC spirit (From World War 1 .. Australia, New zealand Army Corps) .. both countries took the heaviest casualities of that war .. check it out .. from that a "Hard nosed" attitude developed . Your Percy Cerruty's and Arthur Lydiard's are examples of that "culture" . Watch the Aussies and the Kiwis Play Rugby sometime .. you will learn a lot about our "culture" .. Arthur for one was a big Rugby fan .. good player I understand .. back in the day .. .... The inflexibility that Antonio talks of is part of that culture BUT .. knowing that I knew I could sit down and discuss training of a specific athlete with Arthur and it may not have looked like "his" training .. but I usually had his blessing and some good common sense advice with it.

A specific example of where Arthur had to look at "Individualisation" and "flexibility" .. I recall one of the "Old timers" telling me about having to turn up to the Lynndale track for a session of 20 X 400 .. Arthur was there ... everyone was going to do the session (As Antonio would expect) .. The workout started .. after 2 or 3 400's Arthur called everyone over and then pointed at 2 or 3 and said "This is not working for you ... go for a run .. see you in an hour or so " (That usually meant the hills nearby) to some others it was 'slow down' and run 10 to others he said what he wanted (some ran other distances) .. I don't recall exactly but I think only one or two may have run the whole 20 .. 400's ... But that workout would have been published as 20 X 400 and yet maybe of the 10 or 12 athletes there .. one or two actually did the workout.

The other problem of interpretation is the use of 'words" ..EG : repetition v Interval .. I have heard both used loosely in this country but meaning the same thing .. according to who was prescribing the training !!!

Finally, a little story to show "Cultural" difference. As many of you know I spent 4 years in College in the Southern US. Every Sunday I would head out and run for at least 2 hours (Part of my "culture"). Now we are talking "Bible" belt here. This habit of mine used to bother the lady that was our Dorm "Mom". So when she had a friend visiting who was a 'Hell/fire and brimstone" preacher she told him about me. He turned to me and said 'Son, if you are from New Zealand you do one of two things on a Sunday morning .. you climb a montain or you run 20 miles, which one ?" I said "I run 20 miles". he turned to the lady and said "This man does more for his soul than my entire congregation every Sunday morning"

Apologies for the ramble

Now that is a perfectly fine post with a couple good stories that actually happened.

It makes sense. Now, saying that, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to bash this post.

...lets see if that happens.

Wetcoast wrote:

Now that is a perfectly fine post with a couple good stories that actually happened.

It makes sense. Now, saying that, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to bash this post.

...lets see if that happens.

Agree entirely! ... as I said previously, Kim falls into the rational/balanced wing of Lydiard followers.

Wetcoast wrote:

Ok Antonio,

You are correct, this thread is not going the way I would like. Tell you what, I will start a fresh new thread asking to discuss Lydiard. Can you be adult enough to just stay out of it?

Wetcoast

Are you mad ?

You don´t know my motivation to post and i don´t know your.

Look. This site is not the crap of the Forum of the Lydiard Foundation. This is LetsRun.com. There, on the LF is the right place to ask for that kind of proposal

With this your proposal you show your real face, the face of an anti-democratic, dictator, fascist, absolutist, illegal, against the rules and self expression.

Is this yoour proposal your ideal of debate ?

You show the face of the fascist obscurantist and dishonest person that you are !

Of course that you got no right to ask for that proposal. With this your proposal you act as you are the owner of this site, or the site Administrator.

The first and last time that i did accept to not talk about Lydiard it was in your interview.

Wetcoast. I buy my own proposal. I want ask you for an interview, but this time the only thing you can ask is about Lydiard training.

The only one that can get me out this board is the site admnistrator

Gypcy minion here. I don't think you, Jack, or JR are the same person as Antonio but here's what I think. Unfortunately this thread has been hijacked and caught in the middle of war between Lydiardites and Antonioites. I do honestly think Antonio is a knowledgeable person, I have no doubt about that, but for whatever the reason when the word "Lydiard" pops up, he goes mad and acts like a total jerk. Many of Lydiardites seem to have known Lydiard in person and I totally understand when someone you personally loved gets such $hit, you get upset and personally involved. And it seems that's EXACTLY what Antonio wants. He just wants to play with fire and jerk off those Lydiardites and have fun mocking them. That's ALL I can see. HRE could have ignored and stayed away but he couldn't, and didn't. Same with Wetcoat. I mean, look at it. Antinio can't be a total idiot. He had an interview with you and he continues to make fun of your name, after being corrected several times and keep calling you "Keshall"? If that's not making fun of someone, I don't what is. That's got nothing to do with "language barrier". That's simply being disrespectful. And to him to say "respect others to be respected"? What a joke it is!! And how can ANYBODY side Antonio for such a behavior? That's why I just could not help calling those "Antonioites" Antonio himself. He has done it many times before. All those clean-cut talks he does, it has NEVER apply to himself. I wish he grow up so we can actually have a mature "debate".

Antonio Cabral wrote:

You show the face of the fascist obscurantist and dishonest person that you are !

Antonio, the only fascist dictator I see on this thread is you.

I have tried "interval first" training program before and all I ended up with is lots of injuries. When I switched to "aerobic first", the one you claim to be a "stupidity" approach, I did much better, faster times and enjoyed running a lot more. So, a free-thinking person as you claim we all should be and as I am, I CHOOSE to be a Lydiardite. And you are the one who cannot stand this and have to shove YOUR way of thinking down anybody's throat.

I really think you have something to offer, I actually enjoy reading some of your European training methodologies. But you really are obsessed with anti-Lydiard, coming up with many irrational ideas, bashing (as Wetcoast has commented) all those who seem to agree with Lydiard idea, calling them, insultingly, "Lydiardistes" or "cult". Why do you do that?

gypsy,

I prefer not to give too many personal details, but my education background is in computer science, and that quickly landed me a job working with communication satellites in the aerospace industry. I have a very strong mathematical background, so that finds me sometimes in threads discussing Daniels VDOT formulas and what they really mean, or finding the result of "48/2(9+3)", or counting how many complete ping pong balls fit inside a larger sphere, or how soon 100 prisoners can get out of jail when there only means of communication is switching a light on and off as a signal to the next random prisoner on the next day. I am an American who lives in Europe, which has broadened my outlook (it's all relative though) on things like politics and foreign policy, not to mention helped me understand some people who don't speak English as a first language, like the Scots and Aussies. The only philosophy class I ever took was an "Introduction to Logic", which dealt with things like step by step mathematical proofs. I ride motorcycles (well I used to), so I did read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" twice, once in my mid-20's, then again in my mid-30's. I really liked it the first time, but when I read it a second time, I felt I had a much deeper understanding of some of the concepts that I'm sure went completely over my head the first time.

My running career is not much to speak of -- maybe if I had better coaches.... My highest accolade is competing at state trials for the 800m and 1500m for the Junior Olympics. I didn't qualify for the nationals. I felt I wasn't good enough to compete at university level, so I changed gears and goals, only coming back to running some 20 years later. My mind is stronger, but my body is weaker.

We've used a few terms like "harmony", "balance", and even "holistic", and I'm still challenging you to answer why these terms can't also be used for the "non-linear" approach. Keeping in the theme of balance, isn't that the main criticism of a Lydiard, linear periodization approach? When you are focused on a "generic" (same for 800m to 42.2km) aerobic only development for 3 months, you are neglecting other qualities, and the resulting oscillations of the imbalance is too large. What I see from Renato's descriptions, we still have some cycles and oscillations of these variables, but the imbalance is somehow reduced by some maintenance of the neglected elements. The "general" phase (could be two months), when looked at as a whole, can still be said to develop aerobic fitness, in spite of the fact that it might include low volumes of "general", and maybe "special" and "specific" paces. Under Lydiard, I say "generic" because the same aerobic approach was used across the board for middle distance to marathon. This might have other external benefits, such as a whole club can train together, building a high level of camaraderie, and team spirit. But under Renato, "aerobic" is more qualified as a quality linked to race pace. For example, 3K pace for the miler provides the comparable aerobic support that marathon pace might for the 10K athlete. There is still modulation between quantity and quality over the different phases, but also a kind of harmony by keeping the combination of all of the elements necessary during a race present in all time during training. We would still have to use universal principles, like "recovery" to make sure that efforts are stimulating but not too much.

Well I've seen crazier claims about the effectiveness of drugs. When I say "specific" I talk about training around race pace as well as around race distance, to best simulate the conditions of real racing. We don't usually race 5000m in 5 sets of 1000m with a 400m jog. Legend has it that at the 5000m in Rome, Murray Halberg famously pulled a 70m gap with 3 laps to go, and no one could respond because all the interval trained runners had neglected continuous runs at the full race distance, and their bodies were screaming for a 90 second rest.I don't think Lydiard invented the sun and the moon. And I don't claim that Lydiard invented specificity, but just reminded us that it's also important, at a time when we were so obsessed with interval training, we were doing it wrong.

J.R. wrote:

This is a crazy comment, like gypsy talking about repetition training - not interval training - but calling it interval training. Then later he admits not knowing the definition of interval training vs metabolism training.

Anyway, how could Lydiard make specificity fashionable, when interval training was already almost everything specificity??? That doesn't make sense. Maybe Lydiard invented the sun and the moon???

rekrunner wrote:

Legend has it that at the 5000m in Rome, Murray Halberg famously pulled a 70m gap with 3 laps to go, and no one could respond because all the interval trained runners had neglected continuous runs at the full race distance, and their bodies were screaming for a 90 second rest.

Halberg only won by 10 meters, so he lost 60 meters in the last 3 laps? Maybe he should have been doing more interval training! By the way, Bob Schul won in 1964, trained entirely with short repetitions.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't claim that Lydiard invented specificity, but just reminded us that it's also important, at a time when we were so obsessed with interval training

So - Lydiard reminded you that specificity is important, when the world was obsessed with specificity (interval training)?

This is why your argument doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that Lydiard made interval training fashionable.

I don't mind at all. In Lydiard's first book, the 1962 edition of Run to the Top, chapter 12 describes the concept of fractional efforts, and gives Tables of Efforts for 220 yds, 440 yds, 880 yds, 1 mile, 2 miles, 3 miles, and 6 miles. He didn't include 10 miles, and might not go far enough for slower runners (or today's fastest runners) but it's not difficult to extrapolate to other distances and times.So although the concept of fractional efforts may seem "fuzzy" and undefined at first glance, to the unlearned, these tables, published in 1962, actually give exact paces for these fractional efforts, based on the distance, and an average of your best times at that distance.But this book is hard to find, and I've never seen tables published anywhere else, so it's not hard to understand why more people don't know about them.I also wonder if the reason it's undefined is more philosophical, in teaching the athlete what it should feel like, or it might change depending in the athlete in question (hmmm, another facet of training individualization?), or because the exact pace doesn't matter for longer aerobic runs, nor for Lydiard's approach to interval training, so very little effort is spent trying to define an exact pace for the fractional efforts. Paces are important for time trials, but here the mechanism to define the paces is very well described, and not with fractional efforts.For the 800m runner in 1:44, the table would give:3/4 effort - 1:501/2 effort - 1:551/4 effort - 2:00Contrary to Antonio's suggestion, I've never seen a Lydiard example of 200m reps at 3/4 800m effort. It would simply be 200m at 3/4 effort.800m at 3/4 effort is a time trial. I can't imagine Lydiard, (or anyone except maybe Bruce Denton) telling you to do something like 8x800m 6 seconds slower than your race pace, although after a quick look, I did find examples of 6x440 yds at 3/4 effort (3 seconds slower, or up to 5 seconds slower if your best is only 64 seconds or slower), and 6x880 yds at 1/4 effort, and 3x880 yds at 1/4, then 1/2, then 3/4 effort.Regarding "repetitions" versus "intervals", I think HRE answered it before. I'm not so sure, but my understanding is that Lydiard called the work-bout the "repetition", and the recovery the "interval". He would call the whole workout "repetitions", unless specifying the recovery interval was important, then he would call that "interval training". I only see "repetitions" in his schedules though, since his idea of interval training was usually "run one, jog one", and he didn't really experiment with recovery intervals, but only advised against making them too short.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Hi rekrunner:

Would you mind giving a range of paces for, say a 1:44 guy like Snell, in that workout example of 3/4 effort repetitions of 800 meters? And in your understanding did Lydiard make a distinction between repetitions and intervals? When you wrote above, in part, "And I'm not so sure that any kind of interval training would ever be done at 3/4 effort" does that mean that there is no such Lydiard workout as 3/4 effort repetitions of 800 meters? Thanks.

rekrunner:

Thanks for the reply. I agree that HRE answered the question. I was curious if your understanding of interval vs. repetition was similar to his.

Thanks for the example from the tables. Keith Livingstone's book also has tables, but I can't find the book in m apartment right now.

Now, you wrote, in part:

"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."

For Snell the 1:44 guy, what percentage of the energy needed to run an 800 in 1:44 would you guess would be supplied by aerobic metabolism and what percentage would be supplied by anaerobic metabolism?

Suppose Snell attempted 2 x 800 in 1:50 with a 4 lap jog between. What would you guess the aerobic/anaerobic % would be on the first one? How about the second one?

How do you think the percentages might vary for the race and the workout for a fast-type 800 guy like Juantorena or Everett or Billy Konchellah, assuming 1:44 shape?

Thanks! By the way, did the guy with the ping-pong balls question ever post the answer?