Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

In the published book called "Journal of Running Science" in Japan, this one guy wrote a statistical analysis of Lydiard-influenced runners. I don't have it here with me but according to him, Lydiard-influenced runners had world records in "some distance" for 14+ years. This is just checking world records alone. But my argument would be that it would mean so much more to see how many national and regional records Lydiard-trained athletes had broken; or better yet, how many PRs Lydiard-trained athletes achieved. To me, successful training method is all about improvement; a CONTINUOUS improvement. What if one method produced a few world records but destroyed 50 other athletes? I would not call that successful. What if some methohd helped very gifted runners but destroys ordinary people?

On the other hand; all the fairness, we are not comparing Lydiard-trained athletes vs. Seb Coe here. So-called "multi-paced training method" has produced many excellent results in such athletes as Tim Huchinson (did I say his last name right?) who finished 4th in 84 Olympic 5000m (could he move up?) and there ARE many others as well.

Also, HRE help me out with this, I believe Snell had the world record for 1000m. It was the WR for 1500 he wanted and never quite got it.

Basically there are four variables in intervals/repetitions training: how far do you run; how fast do you run them; how many times; and how long the recovery. Various combinations of these would make each workout different. You need to understand what you're trying to achieve and the workout should be tailored accordingly.

You are also forgetting that Ron Clarke and Michel Jazy trained very much along Lydiard lines. The world record tally for Lydiard starts to look a lot higher when you putthese two guys into the equation.

The worrying thing about the Coe system is that depsite it's success with one athlete at 800m and 1500m, it has not been able to produce an athlete capable of busting 14 mins for 5k. All of a sudden the Coe system is looking rather shaky .....

Good morning again, everyone, and thank you for keeping this marvelous discussion alive. It has been a joy to catch up with the latest developments here despite the multiple personality postings of my friend skuj and Dr. E, and the unfortunate effort to demean the Coes by one wannabekila. It should be quite clear to anyone paying attention to this sport that both camps have much to offer and that they are much more alike than different. (I know this has been said here before and I just wanted to endorse this line of thinking.) It is the rare coach who follows one plan – Coe/Martin, Lydiard, Daniels, or whoever – to the letter. Most of us, I believe, try to learn as much as we can from each of them and then put together a training plan that incorporates aspects of more than one philosophy.

Meanwhile I am curious as to why more has not been mentioned here regarding development of the central nervous system (CNS). I have always believed that part of the reason behind doing some speed work throughout the macrocycle has been to stimulate CNS pathways. Clearly this is an important aspect of speed development. I’ve always believed this was one of the principal reasons behind multi-tier training. Any thoughts?

My very best wishes to each of you.

Nobby,

Peter set the WR for 1,000 YARDS in 1962 in Los Angeles. It was 2:06. He never got the 1500 record. But if we're totalling up records set by Lydiard-trained athletes we should include the 4xmile world record as well.

That 1,000 yard WR was an indoor record.

The 1,000 METER record was an outdoor record and was done in 1964; 2:16.6. There, that should cover everything.

HRE wrote:

There, that should cover everything.

Not quite. I believe Murry Halberg also held the world two mile record for awhile.

I have used both 'systems' with some success on myself but have found a hybrid of the 2 seems to work best. The biggest thing that I have taken from Lydiard is that it is not necessary to bang out hard intervals with short rest on the track all year round. Of course the rep phase is a necessary phase but Lydiard suggests not doing so until 8 weeks out from your desired peak. I seem to remember Joe Rubio mentioning that he had found something similar with his athletes in terms of lots of hard reps too soon were getting his athletes ready too early? I hope I have that correct Joe!

I personally find it much easier mentally to avoid doing hard rep work until I am ready which usually means a good base followed by some kind of a strength phase (hills and or weights).

Someone earlier mentioned why not do 6x800m at 5k pace with short recovery instead of doing a 10 mile tempo run. For me personally I would rather do the 10mile run most days. 6x800m at 5k pace with short rest is a tough workout and while it is a good workout it needs to be done when the athlete is ready to do it. I am of the opinion that these kind of workouts should not be done year round.

The main advantage that I see is that the Lydiard "system" is that much more simple to implement. If you are able to just knock out 100 mile weeks for a good few months or so with a good portion of it at a fast aerobic pace then you are going to be 95% there already. Lydiard has said that Snell was already in sub 4 minute mile shape after just doing this type of training. There is nothing that could be simpler.

The Coe/Martin method on the other hand is ridiculously complicated. From the books they have written it is difficult to even come up with any kind of schedule to follow. Although there may be some advantage to doing interval type training on the track throughout the year, the chances of screwing the runner up and burnout are very high.

Coe despite all of his successes missed several seasons, and was even hospitalised for an immune defficiency illness in 1983. Not many runners will have the same sort of medical back up as Coe and should they have been in the same position it could have been "career over" time at age 25. Not really a good advertisement for this method of training IMHO.

Yea ! I'm lurking in the background on this thread. But seeing we are talking records, lets chuck in Murray's little known 4 mile record.

Cheers >

The Professor wrote:

Good morning again, everyone, and thank you for keeping this marvelous discussion alive. It has been a joy to catch up with the latest developments here despite the multiple personality postings of my friend skuj and Dr. E,

how would you feel if someone was trolling using your handle?

tuna wrote:

HRE wrote:

There, that should cover everything.

Not quite. I believe Murry Halberg also held the world two mile record for awhile.

what influence did coe training and the coemartinbook have on morrocan training systems from the 80s onwards? i have read that there was a vast influence.

Mr Logic wrote:

Coe despite all of his successes missed several seasons, and was even hospitalised for an immune defficiency illness in 1983. Not many runners will have the same sort of medical back up as Coe and should they have been in the same position it could have been "career over" time at age 25. Not really a good advertisement for this method of training IMHO.

that is not ver logical!!! do not blame the training for these unfortunate bouts of illness. he came back and won in 84, and had stellar 85-86.

i will add that coe had a long career. in 1986 just before turning 30 he ran 3:29, almost a wr. at 33 he was still in 1:43 shape. this is what one should look at before concluding that his bouts of illness are a bad advertisement for the training methods.

still not done yet :)

one should tinker with training every year. keeping it all exactly the same would not promote improvement. could it be said that in the coemartin method, the opportunity for change is much greater than in the lydiard system? the variables are much greater? i know this may infuriate some lydiardites, and i do not mean to do that. i just wonder how one tinkers with lydiard base. more volume? faster pace? in coemartin, the 4 zones can be tinkered with in and of themselves, and the emphasis in each month can be tinkered with. the variety is much greater imho, and therefore, much more individualized.

proffesor mentioned cns. is this not explored mostly in sprinting, and deeply anaerobic works? in coemartin, this would be addressed throughout the year.

in coemartin there are a million variables for "interval work". the work in december is so vastly different to the work in july. but lydiard never really pushed "aerobic capacity intervals" did he? 6x1000, 3x2000, 2x3000, 4x1500 etc is very important in the coe model. why did lydiard ignore that kind of work for the most part?

ok, i'll shut up now.

Before his last major championship, in 1990, Coe became ill again and had to pull out. He also had to miss the world championships in 1987 because of illness. He also failed to qualify for the olympics in 1988 because of illness.

Every athlete has problems but for a world class athlete he seemed to be ill just before major championships more than most.

No career will ever be perfect. Coe's career was one of the best ever at 800 and 1500m so for sure you can argue the merits of his system of training based on this.

However to say that there were no problems with the system is debateable. As a world class athelte, Coe did have very good medical back up when he ran into problems. If he had these illness problems before he became world class then things could have been tricky.

The system of training was developed by his father who had been training him since the age of 12. There will be very few athletes who will work with a coach for twenty years from such a young age. His father obviously knew him very well over and got to know what worked over this time. However I would say that it is very difficult to implement such a complicated system of training in a relatively short time for most athletes.

In my opinion, there has been an infatuation with all-year-round, interval based training since certain details of Coes training came to light in the mid/late 80s. This infatuation is most common in western countries most notably in the UK and US.

The attraction of fast short intervals with little overall mileage and some circuit/weight training is too strong for many athletes esp younger ones. This 'sexy' training has replaced the 70s/early80s model of mileage and off-track long-rep training. [generalisation but true nonetheless.]

It is noteworthy that this change correlated very highly with the overall decline in the competitivenss of western athletes at the world level. Of course the emergence of east african athletes over this timescale is important but not the only explanation - why are national record stagnant in these countries...?

Country - yr of 800m NR - yr of 1500 NR

Germany - 83 - 80

UK - 81 - 85

Fra - 02 - 03 (Baala)

US - 85 - 85

Aus - 68 - 91

Finland - 89 - 72

Ita - 73 - 90

NZ - 62 - 75 (equalled by NWillis in 2005)

i see these as evidence against the popular interval based approachs

absolutely wrote:

how would you feel if someone was trolling using your handle?

He's too smart to let that happen. Man, I'm getting confused with all of your usernames: Asceticist, skuj, not skuj, absolutely, Dr. E, etc. Please pick one and stick with it. Is that asking too much?

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.