Lydiard Imitations

craig mcmahon wrote:

Jackanory wrote:

A less than perfect methodology in the hands of an insightful, intelligent, creative, caring, and knowledgable coach is far better than the "best" methodology in the hands of a fool.

This SHOULD be the end of the thread. Doesn't matter who we're talking about- one of the things I hear again and again from athletes who ran under successful coaches is that Coach X just had a way of making you believe in what you were doing, and that you could achieve things you didn't necessarily think were possible.

bingo. It's that mind thing again.

craig mcmahon wrote:

Jackanory wrote:

A less than perfect methodology in the hands of an insightful, intelligent, creative, caring, and knowledgable coach is far better than the "best" methodology in the hands of a fool.

This SHOULD be the end of the thread. Doesn't matter who we're talking about- one of the things I hear again and again from athletes who ran under successful coaches is that Coach X just had a way of making you believe in what you were doing, and that you could achieve things you didn't necessarily think were possible.

Yup!

craig mcmahon wrote:

This SHOULD be the end of the thread. Doesn't matter who we're talking about- one of the things I hear again and again from athletes who ran under successful coaches is that Coach X just had a way of making you believe in what you were doing, and that you could achieve things you didn't necessarily think were possible.

But it won't be because zombie gypsy is going to bump it 10 more times today.

rekrunner wrote:

The continuous distance at race pace is the main point of the story about Halberg, even if his interval trained competitors also trained with specificity.

Keep in mind the initial comment (sorry, that was really from another thread a long time ago) was that Lydiard ignored specificity, which is true during aerobic base training phase, but not in the final coordination phase before racing. The story about Halberg famously illustrated how specificity (race distance time trials) was a key feature for Lydiard that distinguished his program from other training programs at the time.

When I was in high school (long ago), an older teammate said the best way to train for the mile was to race a mile every day, the only problem was that it made you crazy.

Specificity usually refers to the pace, as mechanically you're always using many of the same exact functions as you do in a race. Of course with breaks, the intensity is not as high, however the tradeoff is that you're able to accomplish much more work. For example if training for a marathon, why not just race a marathon 3 times a week?

I think what Lydiard says is wrong, because he's trying to act like he created something, that in reality was done by everyone else already, certainly by Igloi. How did Igloi and Gershler's runners break world records if they never raced? So it's ridiculous. The only reason Lydiard ran time trials was because he had no races to run - BUT he did not invent time trials. In fact running time trials and sprints was a standard training method long before Lydiard.

I appreciate that time trials have their place. The disagreement, I feel, is that Lydiard had anything to do with making time trials fashionable. As commented elsewhere perhaps by you, Lydiard simply took things used by others and put them together his own way. To this, we can agree.

J.R. wrote:

Interval or repetition training by nature is specific.

Jackanory wrote:

Once more you need correcting ....

Specificity is about being specific (as close to) race pace AND race distance.

Ignorance is rampant. How dare I have a coherent thought.

Pull the leash!!! Pull the leash!!! Down boy!! Down!!!

Well let's see, Jim Ryun who beat Snell ran 50x 440 with 2 minute rests in the winters, this was worth nothing right? He should have been slogging out 22 minutes at 7 minute pace in the hills, crying 1/2 way home, because that was much more specific???

Fact: Jim Ryun ran many more mile races than Snell.

Fact: Jim Ryun ran less time trials than Snell.

Fact: Jim Ryun ran many more 440 repeats than Snell, and with full 2 minute recoveries.

Correction!!! Pull that leash!!! Danger, Danger!!!! OMG let's not think of reality!!! Of course Ryun should not have wasted his time, and should just have raced a mile every day, to ignore everything else!

Renato must not know what he's doing either, breaking up the marathon into 5k repeats, why not just ran the marathon every day, at race pace!

J.R. wrote:

J.R. wrote:

Interval or repetition training by nature is specific.

Jackanory wrote:

Once more you need correcting ....

Specificity is about being specific (as close to) race pace AND race distance.

Ignorance is rampant. How dare I have a coherent thought.

The day you have a coherent thought will be the day that never comes.

Jackanory wrote:

A less than perfect methodology in the hands of an insightful, intelligent, creative, caring, and knowledgable coach is far better than the "best" methodology in the hands of a fool.

But in the hands of a fool, it is less than worthless.

Rekrunner

You say you are very precise but your are tied of my misunderstand and my inaccuracy.

But this time you are the one innacurate.

You are wrong that when i use the words “superior” “inferior” “better” or “best” etc i wanted to relate to Antonio, Renato whatever indivudual. I want to mean “superior...training method”, mediocre...methdology” “stupid...aerobic first”. Where you read, that when i comment on Lydiard training specifically, that i got out of the Lydiard debate to relate Lydiard training to another coach or another person. I simply classify Lydiard training relate to other training methods or training methodology in abstract.

However, you confess that we don´t need that kind of link to link to Lydiard wit my training, but you do it.

We don ´t need to do it , you don´t neeed to do, it´s not necessary, but the fact is that you did it it either and often.

rekrunner.

One strange thing it´s that some people on the distance run sport they want to discuss with self-Lydiard terminology (or Lydiard did build it as some do accept) that is out of link with word-wide accepted distant run terminology and distance run methodology. This is the case of the past “resistance” that you say you don´t understand quite well when I use that word. In every regular book of manual of that got distance training contain lexicon, I might read the methodological meaning of word “resistance” and what´s the concept of resistance relate to middle and long distance training.

But you still don´t understand or you think it´s not correct what I mean by resistance. Might be your “run culture” and namely the Lydiard terminology one, a very wired and unique, can´t help you to understand the universal accepted terminology. Open the book of coach course from IAAF and you will read what´s the meaning of resistance. Do you want something more formal, more legal, more universal accepted that the IAAF books ? I´m not a teacher, I tried to help you in this issue, I tried to write often about what´s resistance but you still don´t understand or you say i´m not right. There you might learn for yourself. Another point is that I ask myself how do you understand and interpret my training, what you say you know very well, if you miss to understand the ultimate key which my training was built up, the importance and the interest of “built resistance” that´s the main condition to performance progress. In portuguese every running distance manual got “resistência” as the prime training variable of middle and long distance training.

One example (on the internet)

Title: O TREINO DA RESISTÊNCIA – english translation: RESISTANCE training

Another example (on the internet)

Title: O TREINO DAS QUALIDADES FISICAS – A RESISTÊNCIA – English translation: RESISTANCE - the training of physical qualities.

This PDF document is one Chapter and part of an thesis of Ph. - Science of Sport – Training methodology done in the University of Porto by Dr. Francisco Alves and the title of his thesis of some 200 pages.

But you rekrunner you don´t know what´s my meaning of resistance. I confess, it´s hard to discuss with someone that doesn´t understand universal training methodology, or because ignores it, or because got wrong concepts, or because follows the Lydiard wired terminology without correspondence with universal accepted training methodology. Might be you got another problem of understand, it´s te problem of english-american science training terminology that also doesn´t correspond to what is universal accepted.

In portuguese “resistência” in Spanish “Resistencia”. In french “la résistance”. In italian “resistenza”. In german “widerstand”. In english “resistance”. in chinese ...

But you still don´t know what´s my meaning of resistance and index of resistance.

How can i debate with someone that says that i miss something of Lydiard but he doesn´t know what´s the meaning of resistance as distance training variable.

Now changing to another your topic.

I got the same problem about your “pace” and “effort”. Run pace is the consequence of chrono time (duration) versus distance. Right ? I hope you know enough mathematics to understand it. We might call about the run pace - SPEED (speed here it´s not the quality of accelerate, which is one requirement of short distance run) but the SPEED here is the result of time that takes to cover a certain distance measured by distance over time spent. Ok, now what effort. Run “effort” is the “charge” the physical consequence of the stimulus, or the physical consequence of a certain pace. Therefore you are right that pace and effort isn´t the same, but since ther´s a link and linear correspondence of effort relate to pace, the slower is the pace, the easy is the effort, and the hard/fast is the pace the harder is the effort .

As it exists one direct correspondence from the pace (a mathematical objective reality) and the “level” of effort perceived by the subject, it´s here that I did say effort and pace indistinctly. But if you want a be very accurate change my pace or effort and vice versa when you think it´s not right.

What can´t be dubious is the use of pace and percents. I read you know something of mathematics. I also know something. On the 80s I did did many programs of astronomy on ZX Spectrum computer (just 48k at that time) in BASIC language and later on the early-mid 90s I did on the same on “C” language. It was long time ago, and I guess i´m still familiar with calculations, but you fail in calculation and also Lydiard is not good mathematician as well poor in physiology out of the high level he was trial-and-error coach and also a good coach leader, but he was an ignorant about the result of pace fractions, what´s the meaning of for instance ¾ one physical and physiologic EFFORT (effort once again) and you with your mathematics skill and him, you both miss the source of the problem of interval training . This will be the issue of my next post to you on next Monday, I hope so. I will say my opinion and we can debate

Ps – I hope that this time with this post I don´t offend no one of the Lydiardists. You people you shall understand that when someone write something serious and not demagogy or hypocrisy or offense I send you the same kind of writing. You mean that I´m this, I´m that. I write this, I write that....Just go back to this thread and see with what kind posts I did start in this thread and who is/are the first one(s) to get out of the serious track with rush and hypocrisy posts directed to me. I want to remember you all that the first time I felt offended it was by Mr Nobby that at the time he didn´t knew yet who I am I. I guess that what I did it to him was to disagree with him politely. I guess that since we smoke the pipe of peace I never refer to him politely. The problem is that I really don´t care about rush posts directed to me but people felt in trouble and upset by my training disagreement and my outstand opinion and nothing else.

J.R. wrote:

Interval or repetition training by nature is specific. Of course any training can be screwed up but that's not the purpose of it. In general, Igloi's training had FAR more specificity than the training of Lydiard. I disagree that a time trial is more specific than a race.

Do you know what´s the top of specificity relate to the distance run ? It´s a competition, what means to run the total distance of the event at the race pace during the distance of the race in a CONTINOUS RUN.

Thefore, as long are the intervals, and the lesser number of intervals and the closer is the pace at race pace of the distance event the more sppecific, the higher is the degree of spcificity.

The ultimate of a 5k specific workout is to run 5K at race pace WITHOUT INTERVAL RECOVERY. Of course that this can´t be done often. This is why the inytreval training was created. But you are wrong about Igloi. Short intrevals (related to the distance event) aren´t as specifics as long intervals, and the longer the best up to utopia it´s to run the distance event at race pace of that event without pauses.

HRE wrote:

craig mcmahon wrote:

This SHOULD be the end of the thread. Doesn't matter who we're talking about- one of the things I hear again and again from athletes who ran under successful coaches is that Coach X just had a way of making you believe in what you were doing, and that you could achieve things you didn't necessarily think were possible.

Yup!

Your usual incoerence. If you agree that the this threadrad must die why you still post as you did very recently with morev training data ? It´s so stupid !

Andrew

Read this post first

Andrew

Now that you read this great post of mr. KIm Stevenson ab ove let me try to ask your questions.

Mr. Stwevenson post enforces my opinion about Lydiard the man as well as the Lydiard training.

Arthur was a great coach and a coach of great skill, that coach by trail-and-error, kind of empiric coach with tons of experience. I guess we all agree with my comment on Arthur.

But here we got a problem of methodology to solve, and this answers to your question. It´s find to train by feeling-based, but not every coach and every runner got the coach talent of a Lydiard and a few others. The talent of training by feeling-based is something individual, and we see more mistakes on the track that rich workouts, we see more poor schedules out of methodology credit than rich schedules. THIS MEANS THAT ONE TRAINING METHODOLOGY CAN`T BE MADE OF TRAINING BY FEELING-BASED AS YOUR TRAINING PROPOSAL TO FORGET THE TIME AND DISTANCE AND NOT USE CHRONO ETC. One training methodology shall got universal training principles/norms/rules to be able to apply that universal very good determinate and identifid by the science methodology and the physiology as rich training.

Consequently the problem of Lydiard training done by Lydiard the man it´s not a problem. The problem is that without a strong training methodology as the background of training normaly the meaning of training by feeling-based is poor training, undfined training, something even the coach or the portagonist can´t estimate with accuracy what he (they) did, what training they are doing precisely.

Then the appeal of Lydiard training by feeling is a nothing but training disaster, most of the times that this kind of training by feeling, by intuition, without some rigorous training control. What might i comment if one of my runners said he did run 20X400m or 60min run, without take the chrono time or total distance ? I can´t known what he did really indeed, i can´t plan the next week of workouts. No one can´t.

Of course that from times to times and on the day-by-day we might use feeling-based training a few times and i admit that might be positive if sparsly.

However the Lydiard method, to be named and considered as a recognized and identified universal training method needs to define the permisses of the main variables of it´s training method. This is where the problem starts, because the Lydiard methodology is poor in the basic principles.

Aerobic first is a crap, linear-periodisation it´s not correct, some principles are wrong, inadequate, or outdate.the long run is useless in most of the cases, they mont to run hills is not the best one, ther´s no specific training defined, the anaerobic phase (what the Lydiard training means by anaerobic phase) is too short and it´s speedy more than race pace determined, etc, etc, etc. With that principles and the use of feeling based and intuition whatever it´s impossible to built a rich training method. That is what Lydiard training is all about, an composite of inconsistency and indefined aspects.

So let me get this straight... is this Antonio character a Lydiardist?

yep :) but shhhh he doesnt know and it wont be pretty when he realises :p

Antonio Cabral wrote:

In portuguese “resistência” in Spanish “Resistencia”. In french “la résistance”. In italian “resistenza”. In german “widerstand”. In english “resistance”. in chinese ...

But you still don´t know what´s my meaning of resistance and index of resistance.

PS (I beg pardon for the off-topic excursion): there won't be a next time in Portugal, if my oncologist is not completely incompetent. And if there will be a run or, more likely, a jog, I would test positive for EPO.

Shit.

Anyway: you did not coach me in any way and you would no doubt have said that it is ridiculous to try and emulate an elite marathoner by scaling his training schedule down to about half-size - but I'd like to think you were in your way the man behind my marathon PB and the fleeting moments of deep satisfaction it brought me. Thanks!

PPS and a wistful sort of goodbye to all other Lets Run posters with their wonderful human weaknesses!

Renfree wrote:

I could play devils advocate and suggest that perhaps the 'ideal' may be to do the Lydiard base phase (to gain the underpinning physiological adaptations in a safe manner)and then stick Antonio's specific training on top of it (in order to 'learn' how to use your new improved physiology)- then everyone would be in agreement!

\

Andrew. Agree. But what you will name that kinf of training half-Lydiard aand totally Antonio ? Would you name it Lydiard training, when it´s Antonio training either ? i guess that you king of training will be named Antonio training done by Lydiardists. This is what i try to say to te Lydiardists.

Imagine that you lived in the 50s or 60s or today and you train "a la Zatopec", intervals, intervals, aerobic intervals. then you got access to a new kind of training and you didn´t knew, or that you knew but you didn´t follw. You want to try some part of the training that one NZ coach did formulate - the Lydiard training. You try the 100miles, you try the long run, you try the hills but once in a while you continue to do the Zatopec intervals. Whats the name of this new training ? Zatopec training ? No it´s Lydiard training, kind of hibrid or revisionist. Then later you miss soemthing (not a detail, but a fondament) of the Lydiard training and you want to try to mix something of Antonio´s or Renato´s whatever other training. What´s the name of this training ? The Lydiardist, as he usual "got 2 weights and 2 measures" when they consider what respects to Lydiard training or don´t, when someone do something of Lydiard just one percent, one part) the Lydiardist name that training Lydiard training, but when the do something, some part of the Lydiard training they still name it Lydiard ! What a imparcial caracterization from mthe Lydiardist, don´t you think ?

If you're saying what I think you are all I can think to do is wish you the best with whatever may come next, whatever and where ever it may be.

I'm not getting involved in this argument (LOL)!

How bout we agree that there is good (appropriate would probably be a better word) or bad (inappropriate) training for any athlete in a given situation. Lets say you had an athlete who always became very fatigued after a few sessions of short intervals of the type you prescribe. I'm sure that you wouldnt immediately think that the athlete was making it up, or simply a bit 'soft'. You would do a deeper analysis in order to work out what was going on. There are a number of possible explanations. Perhaps you have made a mistake? You could have prescribed paces that were too fast / recoveries that were too short / volumes that were too great. Alternatively you could be prescribing too much running between hard sessions meaning the athlete doesnt recover. If youn identify that one of these factors is the likely problem, then its relatively easy to correct - you simply calm the sessions down a bit to a level the athlete can ntolerate and then reanalyse.

The other possibility of course is that the problem is not with what you are setting, but with the athlete themself in some way. Maybe they are running faster than they should be in order to impress you (or themselves. I suspect this happens all the time. This is a more difficult problem for you to address and the solutions are more complex. Perhaps this is the type of athlete who would be better off learning to train without the control of the stop watch? Another possibility is that for some reason peculiar to their own philosophy this athlete simply does not benefit from interval training. Again, I'm sure that if you felt this was the case then you wouldnt continue trying to 'hammer a round peg into a square whole' and that you would remove them from the schedule. This is where it gets interesting because it now looks as though Antonio is setting a 'Lydiard like' programme! The reality of course is simply that you have acted like a good coach and worked out what is best for you athlete. You could also imagine the alternative - a coach out in NZ finds that one of his athletes doesnt respond well to long runs but gets by very well on extensive interval training in the base phase. Hey presto - its an 'Antonio' schedule!

I believe it all comes down to individualisation as you say - it seems that everyone on this thread ultimately agress; a good coach adapts to the circumstances and doesnt just blindly follow schedules (but they do follow sound principles).

PS - I hope you will be supporting Arsenal against United tomorrow!

Hilversum - I echo HRE's sentiments above

So, we agree. In fact Lydiard only ran time trials because there were no races available. It is strange the Lydiardists do not know of this!

Yes but there quickly becomes a limitation if only running race distance at pace. For example IF Jim Ryun ran a 3:51 mile in training, what then? He would be finished for the day (if possible, as maybe would be 3:58, already not specific to pace). So it is not possible to run race pace at race distance every day. Better is to run maybe 3x 800 or 12x 400 at race pace, but still not every day because this is too tiring. Three miles at 12x 400 is more distance and more specific for a mile at 3:51 than running 4x 5k at 5 minute pace.

Agreed.

It depends on the race distance and speed. Sometimes short repetitions are better, sometimes longer are better. Jim Peters ran continuous running all the time and was very good for the marathon (2:17) but could not break 30 minutes for 6 miles, so he was limited by only running continuous, even for the marathon. Maybe he could run 2:10 with more variety, like the Portuguese methods or combined with Igloi (50 years ago)