Lydiard Aerobic Phase

HRE wrote:

No. You don't discuss Lydiard's training ideas or Lydiard the coach or Lydiard's runners achievements. You simply prattle on about other people's responses.

Thats true. But the main reason that was been hard or quite impossible to discuss Lydiard training ideas thats because most of you deal with Lydiard training as be a dogma. A personal dogma is something ther is no argument that can change the dogmatic person about his own dogma. Take some examples from this board. Nobby (nothing personal) or Kim or John Molvar (very different than Nooby but as dogmatic as Nobby). Before someone may start a discuss about Lydiard training ideas the start point of those Lydiard converted people is that the Lydiard is the worlds best the perfect one. They biuld a pre-concept or the dogma that Lydiard is world best coach and the Lydiard method the world best training. Then thye reuse all kind of argument that places Lydiard in a different consideration that they do. Often they turn very emotional and they are ale to be rational to those kind of arguments. In the limit of some idea that goes against the dogma the bes that Nobby can do is to be very emotional and offensive or repeat the same old stuff key sentences "17 olympic medals". You are a idiot. This is the kind of behaviour that you may realise that´s quite impossible to discuss with people with such behaviour aout their beloved dogmas. On the heat of a discuss their normal behaviour is to finish the discuss. That people is nothing but deaf blind and dumb for whatever argument that is out of the dogma. How many examples do you want from that Lydiard dogmatic guys. The "Lydiard or Daniels" thread is a good example of what i want to say. Some of them they will never change. Ther´s no way that Nobby may admit that may be in some aspects Lydiard isn´t the world best or that Lydiard training is not quite perfect. The 100miles is the perfect mileage. Thelong run is the best, the Lydiard periodisation is the best one, the pace Lydiard advises is the best one, the way Lydiard advises to lace the shoes is the best. They willnt admit some evidence against Lydiard. Not in this lifetime either.

Since they aren´t able to put Lydiard ideas in a good prespective to able the confront with other training opinions then the first task that is to try that those people they may understand they are dogmatics. In my opinion the best strtaegy is to prattle about that dogmatic people responses.

I laughed when I read "waist of time and unrelated to our discuss" coming from you.

First, putting aside whether there really is a discussion happening here, I thought the subject of this discussion, in this thread, was simply "are tempo runs appropriate for Lydiard's aerobic phase".

How is all the rambling about fanaticism, mythology, perfection, success, failure of Lydiard or Lydiard methods related to the discussion that was going on before.

You seem to be rebutting points made in other threads or from other websites, or from other people. Why are you doing that here in this thread?

Hi not a fanatic.

Fair enough about your own opinions, i was recently involved in a pole vault discussion and i wanted to remain anonymous because i presonally knew the guy i was arguing against and i knew he would just go personal. He did in the end after he discovered who i was but by then we had gotten into the meat of the argument already.

This could apply to your situation maybe except you really should angle your attack onto something specific within Lydiard's methodology.

See i used to be a decathlete and i was coached by a Ukrainian. Naturally everything i learned off him was via Soviet periodisation. I then started coaching MD runners and so began looking into that part of this sport. Quite quickly i came across Lydiard and it took a little time to see what he is on about. It's a bit like religion, some people are amazed at the outset, others take some time to see into the message. Those that don't look or are sceptical will never see into it.

When a better way comes along it is wise to take it on board or at least to investigate why so many other people are so interested.

Please though, pick one thing in his methodology you disagree with and then we can analyse it.

cheers

Sim

Maybe. But it still comes off as, "I don't really know much about all this but want to get into the discussion as a major particiapnt so I'll just trash what other people say without saying what I think because then they'll see how little I really know."

HRE

Since I read my own last post i post it once again in the attempt to correct some my type mistakes. While read it I made some changes the way I can express my own opinion in an more understandable fashion. I hope so.

That’s true. But the main reason that was been hard or quite impossible to discuss Lydiard training ideas that’s because most of you deal with Lydiard training as be a dogma. A self or personal dogma is something there is no argument that can change the dogmatic person about his own dogma or fix believe. Often they turn quite obsessive. Take some examples from this board. Nobby or Kim or John Molvar (very different than Nobby Lydiard interpret but as dogmatic as Nobby). Nothing personal with this guys but with their ideas. Before someone may start a sincere discuss about Lydiard training ideas on this board the start point of those Lydiard converted people is that the Lydiard is the worlds best and the perfect one training. John Molvar said something unbelievable: that it is his Lydiard thesis book about Lydiard) they build a pre-concept or the dogma they repeat over and over that Lydiard is worlds best coach and the Lydiard method the worlds best training. Then they refuse all kind of argument that places Lydiard in a different consideration that they do. Often they turn very emotional and they aren’t able to be rational to those kinds of arguments. In the limit of some idea that goes against the Lydiard the dogma the best that Nobby can do is to be very emotional and offensive or repeat the same old key stuff sentences "17 olympic medals" or “You are a idiot” “Lydiard the maker of champions”. No rationality on those arguments. No way has everyone understood Lydiard training as right as they did. Sometimes the arguments goes to personal idiosyncrasy. That they did live with Lydiard and that they know what Lydiard thinks best than everyone else. That is the type of behaviour and argument that you may realise that’s quite impossible to discuss with people with such behaviour about their beloved dogmas. On the heat of a discuss their normal behaviour is to finish the discuss. Most of the time they don’t like the post reply simply because the other doesn’t reply wit the answer they want to hear. That people is nothing but deaf blind and dumb for whatever argument that is out of the dogma. How many examples do you want from that Lydiard dogmatic guys? The "Lydiard or Daniels" thread is a good example of what i want to say. Some of them they will never change. There is no way that someone like Nobby may admit that in some aspects Lydiard isn’t the world best or that Lydiard training is not quite perfect. The 100 miles is the perfect mileage. The long run is the best, the Lydiard periodisation is the best one, the pace Lydiard advises is the best one, and the way Lydiard advises to lace the shoes is the best. They will not admit some evidence against Lydiard perfectionism. Not in their lifetime either.

Since they aren’t able to put Lydiard ideas in a good perspective to able the rational and promote logic confront with other training opinions then the first task that is to try that those people they may understand they are dogmatic. In my opinion the best strategy is to prattle about that dogmatic people responses. If someone is made in stone the first task is the attempt to break that stone not to transform the stone in sand.

I understand what "not a fanatic" is saying.

People invest so much of their lives and reputation in an idea that there really is no turning back.

Perhaps Nobby etc are in that group as you imply. It just so happens that I agree with just about everything they say. And that is coming from someone who was a low mileage/reps are king type of guy. Well, 20 years of failure has proven to me that I was wrong.

Fortunately for me I was able to turn my back on my wrong way of thinking. Few can.

I have met many people in athletics like that (people who will lose too much face if they accept another way of thinking). Unfortunately, as in most social interaction, the empty vessel makes the most noise. That comment is no reflection of anyone here I would like to add.

Is it the best thinkers or the most eloquent that spread their ideas? A wrong idea is spread very easily with very little merit to it when the most talented apply the ideas and are used as examples.

Take Kate Smyth for example. Australian marathoner who improved nearly 50 minutes to run 2 hr 33. Must be doing the right training right? Wrong. Changed her training (got a kiwi coach) to Lydiar like training and ran 2 hr 28 min 51 sec and now is off to Beijing.

She cut out the 3 times weekly anaerobic sessions and replaced it with steady state running (as best I can tell).

the buzz wrote:

Take Kate Smyth for example. Australian marathoner who improved nearly 50 minutes to run 2 hr 33. Must be doing the right training right? Wrong. Changed her training (got a kiwi coach) to Lydiar like training and ran 2 hr 28 min 51 sec and now is off to Beijing.

She cut out the 3 times weekly anaerobic sessions and replaced it with steady state running (as best I can tell).

Buzz

I agree with most of what you say. Except the above sentence and tye above idea.

This is what i fight for. You wrong way to see things at this your way. As many Lydiard fans I think they are. Life as the life-experience that’s not one-dimensional. The Lydiard dogma by the Lydiard fans is this one dimensional perspective. Lydiard and nothing else. Lydiard or bust. That’s not bi-dimensional either. Egg: Lydiard/mileage and all the rest that includes your past low mileage/reps 20 years of failure that you say that “has proven to me that I was wrong” or the second dimension is Lydiard. That’s not tri-dimensional either: My way, your way and Lydiard way. That’s multidimensional. If we deal with the training process as a multitude of elements there are so many out of the Lydiard paradigm. A multitude of elements that can be considered under the Lydiard influence. But often the reason of success that’s simple and straight that’s “the right man in the right time in the right place”. A question of the opportunity not logic reason or other reason of justification. How knows what Kate Smyth would do if she did differently. That’s because I refuse an even single mind appreciation of facts like Lydiard dogmatic they do. There are many training out of Lydiard format that is as good as Lydiard and that despite that it may use similar Lydiard premises as mileage training whatever as far as that training have not a major connection and no source from Lydiard or Lydiard influence can’t be interpreted as Lydiard training. Egg: If it happens I do 100miles a week or whatever others Lydiard training principles this doesn’t mean necessary that I train by The Lydiard way. But Lydiard fans they will never understand what I say. Not in this life either.

"If it happens I do 100miles a week or whatever others Lydiard training principles this doesn't mean necessary that I train by The Lydiard way."

That's where I disagree. That's like saying "just because I run intervals until my pulse is 180 beats per minute, then rest until it drops to 120 bpm, and go again, doesn't mean I follow Gerchler's guidelines."

Or, for that matter, saying "Just because take some cookie dough, and add chocolate chips, and cook it in an oven, doesn't mean I've made chocolate chip cookies."

Yeah. . if you train according to Lydiard principles, then it's fair for someone to go "Oh, you train kind of like how Lydiard recommends." What's the big deal there?

I repeat my last post once again while I add something more. Please read this one instead of the other.

Buzz

In my opinion your post is brilliant. I agree with most of what you say. Except in one point

This is what i fight against. The one-dimensional wrong way to interpret the facts. As many Lydiard fans I think they do. Life as the life-experience that’s not one-dimensional. The Lydiard dogma by the Lydiard fans is a one dimensional perspective. Lydiard and nothing else. Lydiard or bust.

The way to see things that’s not bi-dimensional either. Egg. Lydiard training is one side of the coin and all the rest that includes your past low mileage/reps 20 years of failure that you say that “has proven to me that I was wrong” is the other side of the coin or the second of the two dimensional logic.

Experience that’s not tri-dimensional either: Egg. My way, your way and Lydiard way. That’s multidimensional. If we deal with the training process as a multitude of elements there are so many out of the Lydiard paradigm. There are a multitude of elements that can be considered under the Lydiard influence. But often the reason of success that’s simple and straight that’s “the right man in the right time in the right place”. A question of the opportunity not logic reason or other reason of justification. How knows what Kate Smyth would do if she did differently. That’s because I refuse an even single mind appreciation of facts like Lydiard dogmatic they do. In a world scale there are many training methods out of Lydiard format that is as good as Lydiard and that despite that it may use similar Lydiard premises as mileage training whatever that shall not be Lydiard considered. As far as that training have not a major connection and no major source from Lydiard or Lydiard influence can’t be interpreted as Lydiard training or Lydiard influence. Egg: If it happens I do 100miles a week or whatever other Lydiard training principle this doesn’t mean necessary that I train by the Lydiard way. But Lydiard fans they will never understand what I say or what you said so hypnotise they are by the Lydiard defense.

not a fanatic,

i'm not trying to be on anyone's side, but i just have to say that some of your points are incorrect and i think that that may be causing some of your nonbelief in the lydiard system.

for ex: the 100miles a week thing. i'm pretty certain that that is not what lydiard meant.

He meant to get in 10 hours of aerobic running in a week, which for his elite athletes was 100 miles since they're were in such good shape and ran at an average of 6 minute miles.

"not a fanatic",

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions to really help me nail down what your discussion points are. Surely it's more than attempting to convince everyone that a dogma exists. Can we take that for granted and move on?

Let's put aside perceived dogma and dogmatists for a moment, and assume there are hundreds of thousands of unique training methods, and that Lydiard's, although very good, is neither perfect, nor the best, and maybe just ranks somewhere within the top 10%, or maybe just the top 50%, doesn't matter.

In your opinion, what are the main flaws in the imperfect Lydiard approach to training?

In your opinion, which, or whose, training methods are better?

In your opinion, what aspects make those training methods better? Could Lydiard's training methods be improved with a couple of simple substitutions, and a new name?

Lydiard was arguably a great coach. In your opinion, which coaches before, during or since, are or were greater than Lydiard? If you feel you need to, please explain what "great coach" means to you.

I believe there are about 1,961,990,553,600 ways to lace a shoe with 12 eyelets, although with some constraints, that number can reasonably be reduced to around 43,200. Lydiard recommended "Straight Lacing" (also known as "Bar Lacing", "Fashion Lacing", and "Lydiard Lacing") because it puts less pressure on the top of your foot compared to conventional lacing. But I don't believe he did an exhaustive search. In your opinion, what makes a shoelace lacing technique good? What are the main flaws with straight lacing? Which kind of lacing is superior than straight lacing, and why? How many different lacing techniques do you have practical experience with?

Please answer just the questions relevant to points you want to discuss.

Imagine you run a 26miles marathon distance done at your best pace. Is it a marathon run ? May be that is or may be that is not. It depends.

I guess that the question of authorship is more complex that you say in your post examples.

Imagine that you have a car. A Ford model. And imagine that I have a Toyota. Both cars have 4 heels both have a motor but they are different. The fact that you have 4 heels or a motor doesn’t mean you have a Toyota car.

Imagine that you do 100miles. it shall be Lydiard training considered ?

Imagine that I take out the heels of the Toyota and that you take out the motor of the Ford. Does it remains a complete Toyota car or a Ford car as such ? Try to start the engine and ride that both cars after the motor of one and the heels of another are take out. Impossible to ride don’t you think ?. When you take out something (a part) from the entire contain that affects the whole that’s not the same contain of the original vehicles. car as designed for both car brands and that doesn’t work as they intend to.

The same with Lydiard training. If you take a training elementary aspect that’s no more Lydiard training. If you take out the hills that’s not Lydiard training. It may remains Lydiard but that’s not Lydiard straight.

Imagine that you change the heels of the Toyota for the Ford and you change the motor of the Ford and you place it in the Toyota. Is the Toyota car a Toyota car ? Is the Ford car a Ford car ? If you do 100miles but you miss the rest. Now imagine that I do 100miles as Lydiard prescribes but I also I do twice a day Igloi intervals as he did coach. What’s my training now ?. Lydiard training or Mihaly Igloi training or both or no one ?

Now imagine that I build up not a car but a training programme that’s half (in some points ) influenced by Lydiard 100 miles and long runs but for other part I use Gersheler intervals and in an other part I use my own conclusions from J Daniels but with some my trial and error experience. What is this training now? May I name it “not a fanatic training” training or I need to name it Lydiard training or Gersheler training J Daniels training or what ? I guess that´s my training or my coach training and no more Lydiard training or whatever.

Now in easy mathematics. 2+2+2=6 but if you change by 2+2+1=5. But if you have 2+2+2+1=7. Despite that you have 3+2+1=6 that´s the same result not the same operation than the original 2+2+2=6.

May be you think that’s a post irony but that’s not. The best coaches they know how a little change can decide from who wins and who doesn’t.

again what you are saying is just theoretical. You are raging against something that doesn't really exist. Maybe the isolated person is fanatical, yet that isn't Nobby or HRE or anyone else involved in this discussion as far as i can see.

So what are you really doing? Still reacting to being called an idiot maybe. Let it go man. Your efforts at proving this label wrong are not doing much to remove it.

I'm really confused by the source of your being here. What is your issue?

I looked at the subject of this thread. Somone asked a question and it was answered accordingly.

I have read the Lydiard/Daniels thread.

Where do the "FANATICS" state that Lydiard is the greatest Coach ???.

From my studies and reading of Lydiard I see he took ideas from others and developed them further (eg F A M Webster. When he wanted to understand about sprinting he went to Bud Winter and got ideas from there.

I have communicated with Kim back channel and asked him about a few aspects. He seems to have studied the Sport in detail and Coaches involved.

I asked him the question : Was Arthur the greatest Coach.

He said "After 1960 Arthur changed the way that the World's Distance running Coaches thought and worked. Examples: He helped develop Coaches like Viren's Coach Haikola.The Japanese took what he said and developed their method of training"

If you want to call that the "greatest" fine.

But then Kim said he defined a great Coach in Athletics as someone who could develop/Coach athletes in a range of events and he would rate the likes of Bill Bowerman in that light a better Coach of "Athletics" than Lydiard for no other reason than he could Coach anything from a Sprinter to a Jumper to a thrower to a Distance runner to a Decathlete.

Arthur was never a "Professional" Coach in those early days and worked with Distance runners because that was his passion. He was actually a Milkman !!!!!

Later Arthur was hired by various countries to Coach "Coaches" in the "How's and why's' of this thing we call Running.

All I see these guys on here doing is their best to explain some of those "How's and why's".

Where the Hell is the fanatacism !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then Kim said " I find this 'ranting' against Lydiard somewhat bemusing. Arthur was a controversial figure throughout his career. Least of all here at home. He has been dead 4 years and still the arguments rage.

I often wonder what he thinks of all this. Bottom line though. His name is "Out there". Warts and all.

All I know is Arhur Lydiard had a great influnce on my life for no other reason than he gave me a huge love for this Sport (and Sport in general)so much so that I became a Physical Educator". Is that fanatacism ?.

As sim says "Let it go man !"

just passing through wrote:

not a fanatic,

for ex: the 100miles a week thing. i'm pretty certain that that is not what lydiard meant.

He meant to get in 10 hours of aerobic running in a week, which for his elite athletes was 100 miles since they're were in such good shape and ran at an average of 6 minute miles.

That´s easy. If you are pretty certain that he means to get 10 hours of aerobic runnning instead of 100miles then when i write 100miles replace it by 10hõurs of aerobic running a week. Then i advise you to make it know to the Lydiard Foundation. May be they consider your opinion and they change it on their site.

Mr. Ray wrote:

I believe there are about 1,961,990,553,600 ways to lace a shoe with 12 eyelets, although with some constraints, that number can reasonably be reduced to around 43,200. Lydiard recommended "Straight Lacing" (also known as "Bar Lacing", "Fashion Lacing", and "Lydiard Lacing") because it puts less pressure on the top of your foot compared to conventional lacing. But I don't believe he did an exhaustive search. In your opinion, what makes a shoelace lacing technique good? What are the main flaws with straight lacing? Which kind of lacing is superior than straight lacing, and why? How many different lacing techniques do you have practical experience with?

Please answer just the questions relevant to points you want to discuss.

First i answer to the question of how to lace the shoes. Later i will answer to the other questions.

I use myself and i advise the criss cross or zigzag lacing. I also use the lace shoe known as triathlon lace. I may say the reasons i use and recommend the use of this 2 lace types but this will go out of our the Lydiard discuss. What i may say about that the Lydiard way i experienced that is i don´t see no special interest in put less pressure on the top of your foot compared to my 2 ways of lacing the shoes. They are both good enough and easy to do than the Lydiard one. Often i need to recommend the opposite to advise the runners that have a competition that they don´t forget to do a hard lace.

But the question is not what i prefer or i don´t, but what the benefice that the Lydiard way to lace the shoes does to a runner.

I see the Lydiard training in a world scale of category not at a country scale or at a local or domestic scale or something that a coach advises to their own runners or that a father advises to their sons.

Do you know what kind of lace Bekele uses - olympic and world 10000m winner, several cross country winner, world records of 5000m and 10000m ? I do. And that´s not the Lydiard way. Do you know what lace does Gebre. Do you know what lace used Kipketer or Borza or El Guerrouj ? Do you know what lace kind used Lasse Viren ? Do you know how many world champs, olympic champs, the world best performers in all distance events from the 800m to the marathon or world 100k - thousands and thousands of best top class runners they don´t use the Lydiard way to lace their shoes. I know that the huge majority of them they don´t lace the shoes as the Lydiard lacing. Then everyone on this board or whatever wants that i accept that the fact that a runner doesn´t lace the shoes as the Lydiard way enable him to win or be the greatest runner they did ? Or ask it in other way: do you want that i trust that the fact a runner lace the shoe in the Lydiard way gets benefice to his performance or enhance his performance ? Do you want that i agree that the runner lace shoe in the Lydiard way that´s determinant to your performance ? I don´t. Do you really trust that Lydiard made the champions he made and in what they did the way they lace the shoes had any relevant interference ? I don´t. No one that have a minor logic intelligence does.

When i first read it in the Lydiad Foundation site that they put The lace shoe as an issue condition to the Lydiard training at the same level that all the rest of the Lydiard training - the 100milee, the hills the training blocks, the anaerobic block my think was: that´s a joke. Then i understood that the Lydiard lace shoes it´s considered at the same level of interest as every other Lydiard condition. The aerobic condition/marathon training or the Lydiard hill training or the block periodisation. I would accept the Lydiard lace shoes as seen as recommendation or a kind of curiosity or a personal Lydiard little advise but not seen as near the same level of interest that the 100miles aerobic training as they put it on that site. That is ridicule as not to say stupid that to be a champion it needs to lace the shoes as Lydiard way ? Next they will advise the Lydiard way to take shower or the Lydard way to use your shirt?

One aspect to enhance the Lydiard training in a world scale that´s to put things in their own perspective. The Lydiard way to lace the shoes may be that´s good. But may be seen as a curiosity or a useful advise but not as one of the Lydiard training aspect that´s determinant to perform or make champions.

I give up on you. You are not interested in learning you are only interested in hearing yourself speak. Shutup please.

To live life as the expert sceptic is truly a lonely existence. You in fact are the fanatic and i now agree with Nobby in that you are an idiot. Go toss yourself somewhere else!

guys i am interested in why Lydiard chose this lacing form over all others. The cross over form does apply more pressure even if laced carefully. But who really cares? Lets talk more about the lydiard aerobic phase. How long is the longest anyone has done it for?

sim

First the lacing. Arthur learned that women who had foot fetishes went crazy for it. No, that wasn't it. He thought that the traditional lacing method created pressure on the top of the feet and that his method distributed the pressure of the laces more evenly. I never used it until he was here for his final tour, then I changed it out of deference to him. When I changed back, I found that his way did feel a little better so I've kept doing it. I don't think it's essential, but why not? It's cheaper and more reversible than a tatoo.

I suppose the answer to the longest anyone's done the aerobic phase depens on how you define the phase. I've thought that Ron Clarke, Trevor Vincent and Tony Cook never really did anything but the aerobic phase. But they raced pretty much throughout the year rather than having a specific "racing phase" as in the original model. They never really had a hill phase or an anaerobic phase.

I alwats found that I got slower when I did interval work so by the mid 70s I was only doing aerobic running, sort of modeled on Clarke but not racing as much. When I got to know Arthur I sort of apologetically mentioned that I had really only ever done the aerobic phase, though at a fairly good pace. He told me that it was fine, that you could "race yourself fit" without doing anaerobic work.

The last time Arthur and I talked he told me that Billy Mills told him in Tokyo that he (Mills) had tried to do Arthur's training but couldn't do 100 mile weeks and only did 80. Arthur told me that was because Mills was running too hard. Then he said Mills told him he hadn't done any anaerobc work because he'd gotten sick. Arthur told me, "That's why he won the gold medal. He didn't do intervals."

One of Arthur's lesser known athletes was a guy called Don MacFahrquhar who later became a coach. Have Barry introduce you when you finally get to Auckland. MacFahrquhar always believed that it was the "conditioning" (aerobic) phase that made everything work and once you'd done that you didn't need to spend much time or effort at all on the anaerobic work.

A big part of the problem between Snell and Lydiard came after Peter had done a lot of training with MacFahrquhar and was resisting the anaerobic work Arthur thought he should do.

I don't know how much of your question all this answers.

Bravo you guys finally figured out not a fanatic is indeed one. He threw out the bait and you guys suckered in thinking naf would actually participate in some sort of dialogue. What did you get? The perseveration of a fanantic whose only intention was to drive this thread off topic in which most would log in see what was going on and get out because it was only naf pissing in the wind and you guys catching it. At least you supplied him with gratification by responding. LOL. Well played naf, loved the anti meaning approach