LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

I was reading what the heck I've written and I was getting confused myself... So I thought other readers would most certainly get confused and I'll receive some criticism for putting it wrong!

Would Bekele be running his all-out 800m predominantly aerobic? Well, how the hell do I know and actually I don't really care--all I know is that he'd be very fast. So the question is; why is he so fast? I think; and all of you who are exercise physiologist, please chip in; 800 is still too far to complete predominantly aerobic. I remember talking to Dr. Dave Martin when I was trying to get some answer in regards to skuj's question (what the heck has happened to him?) that he said something like "what many people fail to realize is that 800m is still predominantly aerobic..." If anybody challenges, I'll confirm with him what he exactly said...

Bekele, and other world class distance runners can run very very fast because they have very high aerobic capacity that they can run very close to their top speed without getting into anaerobic state. It all comes down to mean this (and I'll just give you some ridiculous hypothetical numbers): if Bekele, or Ethiopean runner A, can run 200m all out in 22 seconds and you can run 200 in 22.5, it's not that much of a difference as far as "speed" is concerned. But if Ethiopean A is coasting at 24 seconds aerobically because he has such a huge aerobic base and his max aerobic speed is, say, 25 seconds, while you're getting into anaerobic at 25 per 200 speed and getting lactic acid up to your ears because you have very poor aerobic base and your max aerobic speed is only 26 seconds, it's not even a contest before you reach the final 200m mark. But many coaches and athletes misinterprete this picture, trying to improve his "speed" down to 21.5 seconds because he gets left behind in the final 200m = he needs more speed. This is the principle Lydiard has been trying to teach in the last half century and what Dr. Snell was trying to emphasize at the Las Vegas convention several years ago. This concept makes sense to me.

Have I been spelling "Ethiopean" correctly?

Still confused... Up in the early part of my post above, I meant to say; "800 is still too far to complete predominantly anaerobic."

And I checked it myself; it's "Ethiopian"!

I will support Nobby's comments about too much anaeorbic work being done in this country and not enough speed. I will explain briefly that I think Nobby is using Lydiards concept of anaerobic work meaning extended fast running in terms of volume where lactic acid rises a lot and for a long time. Speed training by Lydiard's definition would mean short, fast running with complete recovery between reps and not in too much volume. An example of speed training in the early stages of conditioning the Lydiard way would be 100m fast, run easy for 300m or more, repeat for up to 10 times. Dr. Daniels should be credited for basically using the same concept. He advises some rep work in the base conditioning phase with 200s or so with very long recoveries between reps. Bowerman could be thrown into the discussion to because he used 110 yard repeats all year at a quick speed but not in a very high volume.

I have tried to make sure the athletes I coach are doing striders or short quick sprints 3 times per week. I have used this method since 1989 successfully. I find one very interesting thing happens when runners use the fast striders regularly: they don't get injured nearly as often. I think distance work shortens hamstrings and tends to make muscles in the arches of the feet and of the lower leg not supple (a term I know Lydiard used). I think there is value in doing quick striders or sprints that aren't full out year-round. Not only are there fewer setbacks during base training, there is a much easier and fluid transition to longer reps that take place after the base aerobic conditioning phase is complete.

Tinman

Tinman:

You've brought up a good point. That "suppling" part of exercise during the conditioning was perhaps substituted, whether intentionally added or not, with hilly running and cross country running in the Lydiard program which most people overlook.

In regards to "speed", I remember vividly when I first met with Bob Sevene in Yokohama in 1985 (and anybody who knows him would appreciate the way he puts it); I asked him about the difference between anaerobic training and speed training. He said, of speed, "Speed training is exactly what the word explains: speed. I don't care if the athlete takes 3 days before you do another 400 but you run one all out." Now 400 might be a bit too long for pure speed but his comment supports our school of thinking.

HRE wrote:

Again, you get back to Lydiard's example of Snell in Rome, the slowest sprinter in the field beating everyone because his aerobic fitness let him run at his top speed when fatigue kept the rest of the field from doing so.

Those 1:45s and 3:32s are coming from tremendously high aerobic capacities. There is no way you can "sprint" to a 3:32 or a 12:49.

The comment about too many distance runners doing too little anaerobic work turns up from time time and I always wonder specifically who the commentators have in mind. Every training profile I ever see of US runners for ages now has them doing at least two anaerobic days a week, usually pretty much year round. Have you got any specific examples in mind?

There you go, Kim, you tossed from fuel on after all.

The point I am trying to make is that the top 10000m runners are going into their biggest races being in their top shape for all distances, from 100m upwards.

Those guys have sub 50 pace for 400m 1.45 pace for 800 etc.

An American or European runner with that kind of pace is going to compete in the 1500m and maybe the occasional 5000m, but they are not going to take the 5000m or the 10000m seriously as being their best event.

Those Americans or Europeans who run the 10000m are probably in 1.52 shape for 800m.

The point I am trying to make is that the top 10000m runners are going into their biggest races being in their top shape for all distances, from 100m upwards.

Those guys have sub 50 pace for 400m 1.45 pace for 800 etc.

An American or European runner with that kind of pace is going to compete in the 1500m and maybe the occasional 5000m, but they are not going to take the 5000m or the 10000m seriously as being their best event.

Those Americans or Europeans who run the 10000m are probably in 1.52 shape for 800m.

Right. No argument there. But, I'd bet, though I don't know, that most of our (US) 1:45ish types get that time from doing a lot of anaerobic/pace/speed/work and that for the guys running sub 13:00 as well as 1:45 or so, the 1:45 or so is coming off very high levels of aerobic fitness, as in Snell's case.

Lydiard always wanted to take guys who performed decently at shorter distances thus shwoing some speed, develop them

aerobically, and eventually move them to longer distances to create the same sort of situation you're describing.

That, I would completely agree. In fact, Lydiard used to get criticized for saying 400m champ in NZ, who struggles in the world scene, should develop endurance and move up the distance. I also remember Sev talking something like the best 5k runners in this country are running 1500m and the best 10k runners are running 5k...

To your point, for example, in the final of 1996 and 2000 Olympic 10000m, both Tergat and Geb were probably equally fresh, if anything, Tergat a little more fresh, going into the last lap. But Geb was faster with his basic speed. Lydiard pointed this out in his very original book, Run to the Top, with the example of Halberg and Magee in one 3-mile race in Europe. Magee almost beat Halberg because Halberg was hurting more but because he was basically faster than Magee, he sprinted past him in the final stretch. This where you need to structure your own tactics based on your strengths and weaknesses; your oponents' strengths and weaknesses. Tergat tried and tried--it shows how different his tactics from 1996 and 2000. Unfortunately, Geb was a step (or a half a step) ahead still. Those two races have to be my all-time favorite along with 1976 5000 final...

Excellent point, HRE!!!

Bowerman said the same thing. Take a kid who has speed in the shorter events and train him for longer events. Over 4 years he could take a quarter miler and make them into a stellar 880 or 1 mile man.

Innate pure speed is always a plus to have.

Again, I don't like to make any assumption on how all the elite runners train today. I've heard the both arguments that Auita did Lydiard system (after reading Run to the Top) as well as did less mileage very fast. They either don't tell the truth or blow some smoke. However, one comment I've read of El G's coach is that El G "trains like a 5000~10000 man until the season starts." I believe it was Steve Scott also said that, of the state of US miling, middle distance runners should train like and/or with distance runners.

One of the things you'd have to be careful about is "how fast those elite guys are running." If someone who can run a mile in 3:50 training at 6-minute-mile pace, that's very different from 4:10 guy running at 6:15. It seems like some high school kids running 6-minute pace for distance work. Common sense tells me that it's too hard.

In regards to finishing speed, to be able to run 50 sec. 400m, or type of training to run 50 sec. is quite a bit different from performing repeats of 400m fast and hard with short rest. You need to focus on what it is you're trying to develo; what type of training best develops that; in short, to understand WHY you perform certain workout. To be able to draw that speed after running 24 laps would require some other type of workout as well...

I have found a shoe that works for me that I also believe would meet most of AL's criteria for a decent shoe. Loco Banditos seem to fit my feet well.

I ran, then walked the Atlanta Marathon in about an hour slower than Hotlanta Master. Probably had about 7 miles in the shoes prior to the run.

I am a self employed bean counter in the South Metro Atlanta area and have no connection with LOCO other than as a customer.

Never saw a book from AL until the Spring of 2004. Probably read 8 books by or about him since. I recall him saying that proper fitting shoes do not need to be broken in. This was the first 'thon in a good while in which I didn't get a black toenail in.

Nobby, You are so right "In fact, Lydiard used to get criticized for saying 400m champ in NZ, who struggles in the world scene, should develop endurance and move up the distance".

I have even heard Arthur say that about quite a few athletes. The criticism was not so much that Arthur said it but the fact that the athletes did not want to do the work.

However,In modern times there have been some exceptions. One of our better known 800m runners from the early 70's (still running) was Bruce Hunter. He won the National Junior 400m and went on to become a world class Rugby wing (Yes ! He was an All Black). He then decided to become an 800m runner and was probably the last Kiwi to beat Walker over the distance (1:47.7 to 1:48.1). He went to Europe in 1972 to try and qualify for Munich but did not get selected.

As I said above he still runs today.

In another case, I am not sure which book or article but Arthur mentions an athlete who won the NZ 100m and ran a good 400.

He says that the athlete's Coach got the maximum speed out of him and that it was time to move on up.I know that athlete well and his Coach was an old friend of Arthur's and he was starting to think the same way. The guy ran a 400 one time in 47 and looked as though he could have gone 46. I believe he would have quietly started building up but unfortunately his private life and his general health was shocking and his world fell apart.

However, (after a long diatribe !) what I was going to say is that as part of his training (as a sprinter) and after a reasonable build up, the Coach has the sprint group run from one of our West Coast Beaches (Anawhata) up the road to the Scenic drive(on the Waiatarua). A really tough 10 miles. This particular athlete ran that well.

Sadly, when many of the sprinters ran that run they decided that sprinting was a 'safer' option.

I wonder why track sprinters don't seem to want to work much? Swimmers who sprint are far more dedicated. In fact, swimmers who sprint have VO2 values, on average, the same as distance swimmers...because both do high volume.

My primary and high school classmate started out as a 200-400m sprinter. He loved it but he peaked out at 50.2 seconds within two years(by age 15). I told him and the coach that he needed to move up the 800m. It took two years of convincing to get that accomplished. The first year he did the 800m he ran 1:56 and was 6th at the state meet. The second year he ran 1:54 and won the state small schools championship. I believe if he had run at a college that was good in track he would have run 1:48. He did run 1:51 in college amd 48.5 but his coach was a wts events man and let my friend do whatever he wanted for training which is sad.

So many kids need to move up and stop messing around in the sprints once they stop improving. Speed is limited, but endurance can be developed enormously.

Tinman,

time and again, I have seen kids stay in sprint events as they are the "best the school has". They may never even make it to state in those events, but had they run a little distance work and used their speed they could have been a decent middle distance runner with some college level potential.

In Venezuela I moved to a state that was known for it's distance runners. The kid who won the state 200/400 titles could not compete with the kids from other states at those distances. Moved him up to the 800/1500 and had him win the National title. Examples of this are easy to find all over. Just need to convince the runner.

Glenn

Swimming was a particular interest of Lydiard in his late years and I'm very interested in the application (and someone posted the sites in earlier pages--thank you!). In swimming, and I'd be very interested in hearing points of view from exercise physiologists, I feel 50m is as sprint as it gets. I don't know if those guys even breathe at all but when they get up to 100, what's the world record for 100 freestyle? 48 or something? Or am I waaaay off? That's equivalent of 400m race on track and, given the situation of being under water, it will get quite anaerobic I would imagine... In such condition, the better-conditioned you are aerobically, the better competitor you'd be. So I can easily see why "sprint" swimmer train far to get better. I still don't understand how Eric Heiden accomplished what he did. I don't know anything about ice skating--would 500m dash be totally anaerobic? How the heck could he have become the best in the world in 500 and 10000, I have no idea...

Why don't people want to train more? We've had this discussion waaaaaay back in earlier pages--I still think that's because it hurts! Seb Coe said the reason why he didn't move up to 5000 is because it hurt (though the pace is slower). Well, one of the reasons anyways I'm sure...

Tinman,

Other coaches did the same thing. Bill Crothers was a 220/440 runner in high school. East York Track Club Coach Fred Foot convinced Bill that his event was the 880 and talked him into running the event. In the beginning, Bill had trouble finishing an 880 but after a couple of years of strength and speed training Bill ended up with an Olympic 800 silver medal and and in 1965 a win over Snell. Coach Foot took another youngster who was running shorter distances in high school and at age 18 Bruce Kidd beat Olympic Champion Murray Halberg in a 5,000 meter race.

Glenn:

One other good example is in Japan where there are many good marathon runners. Coach Sakaguchi told me, upon my question of Japanese middle distance running, he said that when they become #1 in Japan, they stay there and not move up because they don't want to put in mileage. That in turn reflects the fact that they can't compete in the world scene. The country where they have 3 sub 2:20 female marathon runners (how many have broken in the world now, 6?) and where a sprinter guy won a bronze medal at the Worlds barely break national records in 800 and 1500.

Nobby wrote:

Why don't people want to train more? We've had this discussion waaaaaay back in earlier pages--I still think that's because it hurts! Seb Coe said the reason why he didn't move up to 5000 is because it hurt (though the pace is slower). Well, one of the reasons anyways I'm sure...

Nobby, i think you are right. People dont want to train for the longer events like 5km and onwards because it hurts too much. Im a great example of this, I really enjoy running 800s and 1500s and feel that for the level im at now, my 23.6 second 200 speed is sufficient at the moment. But my coach is always telling me you are going to be a 5km runner, but I dont want to move up at all because the longer stuff bores me and Id rather do the short fast stuff rather than the long grinding stuff. But in Conclusion, I definitely think people dont want to train for the longer stuff because it takes more time, more miles, and is a bit more boring to the middle distance.

By the way, you are right with the swimming - the 100 free is like 47 something. Ive always wondered the same in regards to swimming - If swimmers or there coaches have taken any of arthurs ideas on board.

Thank you for all information on Lydiard and training I will retire from the internet and practice running know 100% decicated now Lydiaed style.

I am heading to Auckland today for National Secondary Schools Champs. Looking after 3 High Schools Athletes !.

Hope to catch up with some of the 'old' hands. Was hoping for a jog or two on Cornwall Park or Domain, but looking at kids programmes maybe just a lot of running around after them !