Lydiard Imitations

Antonio Cabral wrote:

The Lydiard aerobic proposal it´s quite inadequate training intensity of the aerobic system anyhow.

The fact you can even say this sentence seriously leads me to quickly doubt you. For one you don't seem to know what the Lydiard proposal is. And secondly intensity is only part of the picture yes? Are you saying he has the capacity side of it covered to your satisfaction?

Wetcoast wrote:

When you say that Lydiard training is dated are you openly insulting excellent coaches like Joe Vigil, Jerry Schumacher and others who use the Lydiard method as the foundation of their programs? We could name many more.

Funny.

Take for granted the dubious conclusion that Joe Vigil, Jerry Schumaker are Lydiard straight, and when it´s said that Lydiard training is outdate it´s insulting that coaches, when it´s said that Lydiard it´s in-date or the best training it´s offending who ?

It´s insulting to Renato Canova, James Li, Dr. Kostre, Brother O´Colm and ever other thousand coaches that don´t share your or that Lydiard coaches of training paradigm.

The simple fact that you think that the methodology debate and express different opinion it´s insulting the others that don´t share Lydiard it´s a your anti-democratic, authority , and it´s what is insulting, quite fascist.

Why do you debate with other people ? Don´t you realize that you got 2 weights and two measures. When you ask questions with an introduce that is opposed to the other training method, this is not insulting, but when someone does the same that you do that´s insulting. It´s just insulting when Renato or someone else.

Look.If we take your stupid conclusion as correct, then when in the past 50s-60s Lydiard did stand up to defend their own ideas against some other training systems that Lydiard considered outdate he did insult all the training coaches of that 50s 60s period that didn´t agree with Lydiard.

Wetcoast wrote:

[quote]Wetcoast wrote:

When you say that Lydiard training is dated are you openly insulting excellent coaches like Joe Vigil, Jerry Schumacher and others who use the Lydiard method as the foundation of their programs? We could name many more.

As far as i can read in english Renato didn´t name no one coach, it´s you that did name Joe and Jerry.

Therefore since you are the responsable to name that coaches it would be a clever idea instead of insinuate that Renato did offend them, to ask one by one if they felt insulted with what Renato says about Lydiard.

Are you sure they felt insulted or it´inopportune conclusion ?

Antonio,

Good job pointing out where to source the information. Perhaps the books were not translated to Italian, so therefore this is something Canova may not know. That is fair.

Canova,

I would say that every single person that I have run into who debates Lydiard's method rail against a method that they wholly do not understand. It happens every time and every time it is clearly proven that the argument is baseless and uninformed. Or they are lying.

Physiologist and scientist proved Lydiard's training method is correct after he had figured it out by trying it on himself and other athletes. What more do you need? A physical intervention from world-class coaches who use the method? Stop insulting all the coaches around the world who use the method as the foundation for their coaching.

Some coaches who use the Lydiard method....oh hang on...I mean good physiology...yeah that's better....who also happen to denounce the physiology in the name of Lydiard, turn out to be using the very method they are denouncing.

Right here, display your entire programme. Let's see it. Put your money where your mouth is.

Sure you can tweak the Lydiard method and slightly improve things here and there or run into a genetic freak and cherry pick your athletes, but good physiology is good physiology. I want to see some actual basis to your argument. Until then your contributions here are completely useless to people out there who may be interested in learning something.

Listen Antonio,

First off, when Canova writes, "don't talk about Lydiard..." he is not "discussing" he is telling others what to do. He needs to display some humility or perhaps less of a pompous attitude.

It is insulting to those who publicly talk about using the Lydiard method as a successful coach. I don't have to name one person....look around, there are hundreds at different levels.

I look at Hadd's method as displayed by someone on another chatline and there are so many similarities it is uncanny. Yeah there are some differences. Lydiard treated each athlete as an individual. It's the principles that matter.

Even you admitted to not knowing as much about Lydiard to me in an interview, then you can on Let's Run and said that Lydiard is all about slow long running and that is all you need to know. Which says right there that you do not understand the method just as you admitted and that is EXACTLY what Renato Canova did by opening his mouth and saying the same thing.

Look, I don't know much about Bordin. I would ask you in a humble way, please tell me about Bordin. If you don't know Lydiard, ask instead of arguing in a baseless fashion against it with two useless points "dated" and "slow" neither of which is true.

By the way, Bordin and Hadd both admitted to "basically using the Lydiard method".

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

2:07 Italian Stefano Baldini

Olympics

2004 Gold winner of Athens Marathon

World Championships

2001 Bronze Edmonton Marathon

2003 Bornze Paris Marathon

Yes Italy Proud,

But to take a page from Renato, it is in the past, therefore irrelevant.

gypsy,

You are really in a certain mode now aren't you. It's difficult to respond to every point in your lengthy point, but I will try to clear up some of the questions by presenting my understanding.

First let's define what we are talking about. When we speak of and criticize Lydiard, it's usually something like the classic representation you can find at the Lydiard Foundation website:

http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training_eng.pdf

. On one of the pages, you will see an outline something like:

1) Marathon conditioning - as many as you can (depends on previous season and the next race)

2) Hill training - 4 weeks

3) Anaerobic training - 4 weeks

4) Coordination - 4 weeks

5) Freshening up - 2 weeks

6) Continuation of Racing

Other books and representations give different period lengths and outlines (they are all supposed to be examples of balanced implementations), and the same presentation also mentions "complex" examples like the continuation of racing and the race weeks/non-race weeks, but for the purpose of explaining the comment complaints, I will assume the summary above.

My understanding of "complex", for the purpose of my explanation, simply means that all the elements of training are represented and trained simultaneously, within a regular cycle. For example, everything will be trained at least once, on a weekly basis (or maybe a 10 day cycle). This contrasts with the classic periodization, where each phase has a focus on developing a single training variable (and maintaining previously developed variables). When Antonio speaks of linear versus non-linear periodization, this is the distinction I understand. Lydiard's classic periodization is linear, while a non-linear periodization is complex.

Lydiard presents continuation of racing, and the race week/non-race weeks. Robert de Castella also used a "complex" implementation of Lydiard's ideas. So these are alternate examples of "complex" training linked to Lydiard ideas. Although they are called complex, they can be easily described with "typical week" schedules. But I think these are not good examples of what we mean by "modern training" with non-linear periodization -- these typical weeks are not many periods, but basically the last period before the cycle starts again.

When you read some of Canova's threads, describing some of his theoretical ideas, and some practical examples, these are not simple plans easily explained by "typical weeks". In fact, like Lydiard, he also describes different periods. At first glance, it's hard to understand the difference. I don't want to summarize it here, but a lot of the information can be found by reading the first few pages of this thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2959804

(Note his name changes in the thread -- I think there was a story when someone guessed his password, so Renato started posting as "Canova Renato").

A brief outline is that after a brief INTRODUCTORY period, the training consists of a FUNDAMENTAL, then SPECIAL, then SPECIFIC period. Each phase provides support for the next one. If you want more details, it's worth taking the time to read and parse those threads. There, the paces are better described (REGENERATION, GENERAL, SPECIAL, SPECIFIC), as well as the concepts of EXTENSIVE training, versus INTENSIVE training. The approach is also different for middle distance, long distance, and marathon training. But that's a pretty good thread for presenting most of the concepts, although if I recall, it doesn't mention the use of CIRCUITS (like Lydiard's hill training), which were detailed in the long Canova thread.

I asked Antonio once (well more than once) to explain how we could "fix Lydiard" by going from Lydiard to modern training. He seemed reluctant to do it, as if I asked him to make oil from water, but I actually liked his answer. If you start with Lydiard phases, you would pull the interval training forward into the marathon conditioning phase (they would form a defined progression towards your event as the training advanced), and the hill training phase would be extracted, and spread across all phases (as some sort of strength training or resistance training circuits). He used a little more detail (describing the extensive and intensive training, and progression), but for some reason, the image of morphing from one to the other really helped put things in a better perspective.

So that was just the starting point of the definitions and concepts, as I understand them.

It's not correct to think that a modern approach neglects aerobic training. It is not relegated to any kind of secondary status. Using Canova's example, the FUNDAMENTAL phase provides the AEROBIC support. The main difference is that, under Lydiard, it is generic for 800m to marathon, while under Canova, the pace is qualified with respect to race pace. Aerobic support required for 1500m is not the same as aerobic support required for a 10K or a marathon. Another distinction (not found in the thread I linked) is that Canova already describes the use of circuits (different ones for FUNDAMENTAL, SPECIAL, and SPECIFIC periods), and will include interval training in this phase (at least for middle distance). These intervals will not have intense repetitions, but the goal will be to do more of them, as the training progresses, or reduce the recovery interval. So for Lydiard, everyone uses the same definition of AEROBIC, but for Canova, the definition of AEROBIC is refined, as it takes the athletes event requirements and ability into consideration.

It's also not correct to think that Lydiard completely ignores specificity. As I've argued before, Lydiard felt specificity was very important (once you were ready for it). He featured it as a reason why Murray Halberg won a key race, by pulling a 70 yard lead in one lap, because his training included a progression of race distance time trials and development races, while his competitors were only interval trained, and their interval training didn't prepare enough them for the actual race conditions. The main problem is that these kind of "specific" time trials and races don't really appear until the coordination phase (e.g. the 4th month of the training cycle). The earlier phases (marathon conditioning, hill, and anaerobic training), are not defined in terms of race pace.

So what did I mean when I previously mentioned "without too much negative physical consequence"? It boils down to this question. Is there a valid reason to do an extended phase of aerobic only training? After all, racing requires a combination of all the training variables, at the same time, during the race. Why doesn't it make sense to take a "holistic" approach, and train the variables simultaneously? Speaking for myself, after an intense season, I needed a break purely for mental reasons. So it was important to run, without aggressive goals, just to bring the fun back. But is there a physical consequence? For example, would a 3 month "aerobic only" phase lead to an inferior preparation, come race day, versus a modern "complex" approach? I was expressing my opinion that I don't think it ever hurt me, either in the short term or the long term. (Actually, when I competed, what hurt me was the bad training during the season, and not the training during the off-season, but that's another story). Another part of the same question, do many years of many cycles of "aerobic only" phases lead to a true lack of reaching one's potential? You might also ask the question from the other side: does it lengthen your career, or allow you to reach a higher potential? I think this is one of the main areas of disagreement. Does a linear periodization approach help you, hurt you, or is it immaterial.

Maybe to address Antonio's "aerobic" comment, while I address the VO2max benefits after 2 years point. I think here is also a misunderstanding. It's true that Lydiard says that aerobic development is quite unlimited. Antonio has expressed the fallacy of that belief many times. Antonio has also argued that interval training can bring a superior aerobic development, versus continuous efforts (e.g. a 52 minute 10 miler). I don't speak for Antonio, or Lydiard, but just setting the context for my opinion. I gave a reference that said VO2max changes occur fairly quickly, in the terms of one career. But just because "aerobic training" starts bringing less and less "aerobic adaptations", doesn't mean that other benefits stop too. I think there is (or should be) a "practice makes perfect" principle, that says benefits still come from just running. The more you run, the better you get at it, improving efficiency and economy. The oxygen cost of your efforts decrease, for the same pace, because of improvements in neuro-muscular systems, and reduction of wasted movements. This effect last on the scale of decades (if you are lucky). You don't need to give up the "aerobic training" completely, but having said that, I think it is most important in the early years, and becomes less important for the seasoned and mature athlete. Renato said something differently, that athletes first work on increasing their volume, and then later in the careers, the volume will decrease, while intensity increases. Also, to make the same point again, yes I think with children, it is important to build an aerobic foundation first, before starting serious training. And again, this is how I understand Renato when he says that Africans start their training already at 85-90% of their potential, since they are already doing what is the basis of training, running long and fast.

But I said before, I don't understand the value of talking about things like capillaries and mitochondria, even in the first two years, except maybe to explain it once to the beginning athlete to address a minor curiousity. We can measure improvements with a stopwatch.

I think I have to stop for now. I have to give Antonio credit for calling me out, after I said I wouldn't participate too much in this thread.

Wetcoast, may be my English is not very good, so I need to explain again my points.

1) I respect all the coaches, and never I insulted anybody. I can also tell you myself was very involved in using Lydiard's approach, but after this I tried to develop his system in something more effective, especially for long run.

2) For example, with Shaheen, World Record holder of 3000m steeple, I used very long run once per week, BUT ALWAYS FAST. In 2005, one week after winning in 7'56" Golden Gala in Rome, Shaheen in Kenya ran 37 km on hilly course in 2 hr 01' (that is 5'13" per mile on 23,125 miles), and this is not the system of long run Lydiard used.

3) About volume, you speak of 150 miles per week (that are 240 km). All my marathon runners run this mileage normally, sometimes also more.

4) What changed is the VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY. And, for that reason, the world level in HM and in Marathon changed.

5) I want to give you some percentage of change for the different distances from the period of Lydiard till now :

WR '68 WR '11 Improvement

800 1'44"3 1'41"11 3"19 3,03%

1500 3'33"1 3'26" 7"1 3,33%

3000 7'39"6 7'20"8 18"8 4,09%

5000 13'16"6 12'37"6 39" 4,89%

10000 27'39"6 26'17"4 1'22" 4,94%

HM 62'30" est 58'23" 4'07" 6,58%

Mar 2:09'36" 2:03'02" 6'34" 5,06%

If we don't consider HM (in 1968 there were no opportunities to run the distance), we can see that the improvement is very much bigger in long distances.

The question is : WHY ?

6) And the answer is : THE INCREASE IN THE VOLUME OF INTENSITY.

7) There is a limit in the improvement of the capillarisation. The human body cant continue to build new vessels, using an activity not able to stimulate the cardiovascular system. NEVER A PHYSIOLOGIST CAN SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS. Go to read from Costill, for example. The fact Lydiard wrote this in his book is not relevant, BECAUSE IS NOT TRUE, and never Lydiard was a physiologist.

8) But it's true that the today generation of western athletes, not having any aerobic background (on the contrary of the athletes of 40 years ago), needs to build the aerobic base and, under this point of view, the principles of Lydiard are still valid for the first 2-3 years of their career (but not for ever...)

9) We speak about FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD and SPECIAL/SPECIFIC PERIOD, with different approach and phylosophy.

In the fundamental period, WE MAINTAIN THE SAME INTERNAL LOAD. The performances can grow because of the adaptation of the body at new stimuli, maintaining the same level of fatigue in the body (for that reason we call it INTERNAL LOAD).

What happens in this period ?

If you are able running 10 miles at 6' per mile in 1 hr, after two months the same level of fatigue allows you in running in 58' at a pace of 5'48". So, it means that the effect of 6' per mile of 2 months before, and of 5'48" per mile 2 months later, is exactly the same. If it the same, it's clear that running at 6' per mile when you are able running in 5'48" doesn't provoke any stimulus, SO IS NO MORE TRAINING, but REGENERATION.

In every methodological research it's clear the concept of INTERNAL LOAD, and I'm sure that Lydiard, as coach, well knew this effect. But the interpretation of his principles by the most part of his followers is wrong, IF THEY CONTINUE FOR ALL THEIR LIFE RUNNING AT THE SAME INTENSITY.

10) Instead, during the SPECIFIC PERIOD, we look at the EXTERNAL LOAD, that is connected with the matematic of the speed. If we want running 10000m in 28', this means 2'48" per km, and we need to respect the individual possibility to EXTEND ther ability in lasting at that identified speed. Because the aptitudes of runners having the same PB can be different (look at Cabral and Hadd when they spoke about the two typologies of runners for every event : FAST and RESISTANT), different must be the recovery between the specific sessions, different the recovery in between tests, different the total volume, BUT SAME THE SPEED.

11) Baldini can be in the past, but when he won OG already used a system very similar the system of today. For example, Luciano Gigliotti used to introduce during long run of 2 hours at 3'20" per km average, 4-5 times 2 km in 5'40", going back immediately to the basic speed of 3'20", when we were in St. Moritz for preparing OG. And I think the career of Baldini was a little big longer that the career of many top runners from New Zealand (he won a medal in 5000m in European Junior Champs in 1989, was World Champion in HM in 1996, twice bronze medal in WCh in Marathon in 2001 / 2003, won OG in 2004 and was still European Champion in 2006)...

12) The fact that the top Italian runners didn't meet African runners is not true. If somebody thinks this, is because his knowledge in athletics started and finished in Oceania many years ago, and because he's still living in the past, looking at local experiences. When Panetta won 3000st in WCh 1987, there were Kenyans. When Bordin won OG, 2nd and 3rd were Wakhiiuri (KEN) and Salah (Gibuti). May be when Snell won OG there were no Kenyans (and in any case he could be the winner in any case), exactly like in 1976. But this is not the point. I don't speak about MEDALS, I speak about TIMES. And for me cant be relevant, speaking about methodology, to put Julian or Barry Magee like examples. They are in the history because represented something important in the evolution of the discipline, but their training is very far from the modern ideas, and probably with the current system they could run 2:06:00 instead 2:14:00.

Brumel was one of the greatest high jumpers ever, but all what he did is obsolete, because, like in every human branch, there is evolution in science and methodology.

In this there is nothing insulting Lydiard. Nobody says some coach of today is greater than Lydiard. But what Lydiard did was the best for his time, now (starting from Lydiard) we did something different.

I cant understand why, in every activity, people can accept the evolution of technology and specific knowledge (look at elektronic, for example, or atomic science, or medicine), and when we speak of methodology in athletics everything must be the same of the past.

Saying that nobody can know his body better than the athlete himself, doesn't mean he can have the solutions for using his body in the best way, otherwise we can say the same thing about every sickness. This means only that the best training can come from the full collaboration between athletes and coach : the first explaining his feeling, the second using the explanation for giving scientific plans able to increase the qualities for the performance.

Ok I will read over again, to make sure I understand what you say (later). For now though I see two things I would like to comment on.

It appears that you think that Lydiard did not have his athletes push for more stimulating workouts year after year as they progressed faster and faster. This is not correct. Each athlete was treated according to the athlete - you know as one. The principles never really changed. So please adopt that in your thinking - you know if you want to understand Lydiard training more fully.

Also, this comment if I understand you correctly is very Lydiard:

>>If you are able running 10 miles at 6' per mile in 1 hr, after two months the same level of fatigue allows you in running in 58' at a pace of 5'48". So, it means that the effect of 6' per mile of 2 months before, and of 5'48" per mile 2 months later, is exactly the same. If it the same, it's clear that running at 6' per mile when you are able running in 5'48" doesn't provoke any stimulus, SO IS NO MORE TRAINING, but REGENERATION.<<

This is exactly as the "out and back run" was all about when used as an indicator of fitness.

Again, I will read your post again later. Thanks for responding.

Times get faster over time. Kuts was faster than Zatopek. Wooderson was faster than Cunningham. It happens and in some cases people who aren't training any differently than their predecessors do it.

Comparing times today with those of 30-50 years ago and concluding that the improvement is because of improved training is just silly. That certainly could be a factor. But you're overlooking the advantages of professionalism, significant financial bonuses for breaking records, faster tracks and shoes, professional pacemakers and performance enhancing drugs. Comparing today's times with those from decades ago is like comparing pole vault marks of today with those made with metal or bamboo poles.

Finally, your comments about the Lydiard system would be more convincing if it seemed like you knew what it was about. Where ever did you get the idea that there are no intense long runs in his system?

Oh yes, I'll ask this again. If we've made so much progress in training methods why are only East Africans running faster? Why is it not working for non-Africans?

I'd like to see Baldini's training leading up to the Olympics.

Yes i am :) I'm just looking into every little detail at the moment. I am really wanting a methodological debate with these modernised coaches. I've put questions to Antonio repeatedly with no reply. In fact i've asked Antonio many questions all of which remain unanswered whereas i have only just asked Renato questions. In the absence of replies from Antonio all i can assume is he doesn't know methodology well enough to debate it. Perhaps i wait in vain. You reference Antonio and Renato below but i would prefer to respond directly to them about their own methodology. (plus it shortens the post a lot)

Ok so this looks like a 6 month cycle, but adaptable to differing time frames. I can see the point of the modernised coaches; over 12 months this is too long a marathon phase unless it is in the first few years of a program. I agree that after the fundamental years this shouldn't be such a large proportion of the training period. However, to eliminate it would mean to stop any progression in this area. Why do this i am wondering of the modernised coached.

So we have complex which is the concurrent training of all elements/variables in all phases. I assume the differentiation is in relative proportions of the elements. This follows the line of thinking brought up by the general/specific dichotomy. Specificity as a Principle is applied both specifically and generally and Generality as a Principle is applied both generally and specifically. We do this because we are dealing with a holistic system and within in each element contains part of the other elements. The yin/yang symbol represents this most clearly for me. That little black dot inside the white is the giveaway.

So to have Specialised General focus we see an isolated period of concentration on General training. It is how to do it in technical development and the principles are the same for fitness development. To have a Generalised Specific focus we already cover by doing a higher volume of activity at paces below race pace than on race pace. So we have taken the specific training needs and generalised their effect through volume and this volume acts in a supportive way. I only see the latter being applied in modernised training.

So we have what we perceive as strict Lydiard periodisation and then we have the beginning of complex Lydiard. Was it Clohessey that was the first along this line? Anyway he was at the start of it whether first or not and i had always dismissed looking into him because i only wanted to focus on pure Lydiard at the time, as it was new. Now i look at Clohessey and i see his reasoning for starting to complexify Lydiard. He did it because of children he was coaching. He found the attention span in most kids didn't stretch far enough to be able to handle even a 6 month Lydiard period. So he made it more complex so they could compete more often and stay interested. he made complex so athletes would stay interested long enough to get into real training. But he never dropped the complex with adults and developed athletes so i wonder about that.

If we take his initial reasoning, that the attention spans of the young athletes weren't capable of dealing with a long training-only period, and we apply this to every development in complex training since, then are we not creating a system of short-term thinking? A system which encourages athletes to think in short term periods? Should we not as coaches be treating them in a way which leads them into longer term thinking? Expanding their thinking through the coaching process and not shrinking it? I don't know. If complex is the result of this short attention span problem, and is bound by the need to keep athletes entertained, then we have a serious problem don't we?

Another way i look at it is this: fast food = long term problems; fast ecnomics (as we can now see) = long term problems therefore fast training = long term problems. I'm just wondering what's the rush? Is it the cash?

Thanks i will.

This would be interesting. Where can i find the details?

And what supports the fundamental phase?

And what role other than supportive does this fundamental phase have?

I wonder about these questions because it is unique in appearing not to have an answer to either question. Even the peaking phase is directly supportive of competiton. Every other phase in this system has a support and a specific function except the fundamental phase. It is devalued in these two senses.

I agree with Canova and i think your impression of Lydiard is incorrect. Sure he went specific with each individual athletes requirements on at least the aerobic level. is 52-53mins for 10miles specific enough? I agree with the common assessment of Lydiard in one way. The on track interval training has gotten more refined since his day. Nothing he did was wrong mind you. The principles aren;t incorrect anywhere. But the fine application of the principles into the high speed intervals could have gone further if he had coached that initial group for longer. I believe it has gone further since his time. but to say he didn't do special endurance for each event type is incorrect.

So i agree that the direct support for each event is different. I call this direct support by the term special endurance. It follows on from specific endurance. General = specific - special. I'm not aware of another way to use this type of endurance that originally came from Matveyev's thinking. It is like the specific of the specific. General for me is expanding aerobic capacity. Specific is extending aerobic power. Special is intensifying aerobic power towards specific event components. So the first is exemplified by ever increasing volume of overall mileage and individual run mileages. The second can be identified by threshold running. The third by breaking the steady states up with intervals, This allows us to increase the volume of work that can be done at special endurance paces, which are relative to the race distance being trained for.

The thing i disagree with is the need to develop all three, all the time. And the most base reason i can think of why this mixing shouldn't 'always' be occurring, is because we want to be able to focus on each quality for a period of time without distraction. If we are attempting to expand our aerobic capacity as efficiently as possible we need to be specific about it at some point in the training cycle to allow proper focus. Of course we could drop this idea as a training phase if we didn't have time before competition and underlying condition is already strong, but just like technical development, there needs to be an isolated period of focus. And any developmental activities outside of this focus simply take away from the amount of energy the athlete has available to devote to what they are focusing on. Instead of 100% focus on aerobic capacity development we have 75% or 50% or whatever. Without 100% focus breakthroughs are difficult to make.

Thanks for this info. I'm glad you pulled out this example. I don't know whether your last statement is true though. I don't have the specific knowledge either way. Perhaps someone can fill in some details here.

I agree with this. Just like when developing technical components you need to 'learn' how to forget your focus on going for distance. This is a fundamental and it takes some years to completely eliminate. So gain 'full' focus on the technical change requires removing all other focuses, and the most pervasive mental interruption is this focus on 'result'. The athletes needs to move from result orientated thinking to process orientated thinking. Why is this missing from this modernised approach?

Good point but i wonder what physical benefits did you also gain but weren't aware of? The problem with these 'gains' are they are invisible and totally occluded by the perception we are losing race quality and so therefore actually going backwards.

Holistic approach. This is the claim of modernised training? A more holistic approach? It's a less holistic approach than Lydiards. I say this with complete conviction and will explain why.

Holstic doesnt mean everything is equal. This is one of the mistakes modernised training is making, an equalising of everything. This is not holism. It's an attempt at it i grant you but holism is not grabbing all the vairables we have located and mixing them together. Holism BEGINS with recognising the organism as a 'whole' and THEN seeing its component parts and their relative proportions and their relationships with one another. This version of 'holism' that is being used as an underpinning for complexified training has done it in reverse. It has taken all the parts of the whole it is aware of and has mixed them together in an attempt to create holism. But it doesn't realise everything is NOT equal.

So when Lydiard trains each element in progression, making sure one is solidly in place before changing focus to the next, he has recognised the relative importance of each different element. Sure they all exist together but they aren't all equal. As Aristotle said: "the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

Yes it would if the race was a month away. No it wouldn't if there was adequate time to go through the whole process.

I think linear helps long term progression and hinders short term competition needs. However, with patience to see the entire process through it can create greater competition gains at the end. I think non linear can help with short term or constant competition demands but because it lacks patience it will hinder long term competition gains.

I am with you on this stuff. You know that with minor technical training, mostly in the demonstration to athletes, my technical abilites for decathlon are way ahead than anything i had as an athlete. I'm not forgetting and my body is still capable so why lose it? It takes so little to maintain a feel for a movement just by doing it regularly without effort even.

Did i miss this?

thanks again rek - it's enjoyable dealing with your openness.

Westcoast, I want to give you an example of the type of training I use during the General Period, partcularly after a marathon. This is the only time of the season I use a "linear program", because we are far from the competitions and I can work with a group, something I never use to do during the specific period (as Lydiard, I'm for the individualization of every training program).

I cancelled the name of the athlete, one of top 5 in the World in Marathon.

………………’s TRAINING PROGRAMME

(4 weeks, till the end of December 2011)

Monday :

a) Long run at a pace of 3’40” per km (1 hr 10’ `` 1 hr 20’)

b) 40’ easy run + Exercises (A)

Tuesday :

a) 20’ warm-up + 12 km fast

(1st period : 3’10” pace = 38’ - 2nd period : 3’05” = 37’)

b) 40’ easy run + 80m sprint uphill (max speed) (12 < 15 times)

Wednesday :

a) Long run at easy pace (1 hr 10’)

b) 30’ easy + (Track) 10 x 300m rec. 1’

(1st period in 45” - 2nd period under 44”)

Thursday :

a) 40’ moderate + Technical exercises (A)

b) 30’ easy run + 7 x 1000m (rec. 2’) starting with 2’47” < 2’45”

Friday :

a) Long run at a pace of 3’50” per km (1 hr)

b) 30’ easy run + Exercises (B)

Saturday :

30’ easy run + 5 times fast uphill run, 95% of max speed

(1st period : 5 x 300m, rec. 4’ – 2nd period : 5 x 400m, rec. 6’)

Sunday :

Rest

Monday :

a) Long run at easy pace (1 hr 20’)

b) 30’ easy run + Exercises (A)

Tuesday :

a) 50’ easy

b) 30’ easy + Circuits for strength endurance (rec. 6’)(1st period : 4 times - 2nd period : 5 times)

Wednesday :

a) 1 hr easy regeneration

b) 30’ easy run + Exercises (A)

Thursday :

a) 30’ warm-up + 4 sets of (600 + 500 + 400 + 300 + 200m), rec. 2’ between tests, 5’ between sets. Times for the 2 different periods :

1’39” %% 1’37” - 1’22” > 1’20”5 - 1’04” > 1’02”5 - 46” > 44”5 - 29” > 28”

b) 40’ easy regeneration

Friday :

a) 1 hr easy regeneration

b) 30’ easy run + stretching

Saturday :

Warm-up like in competition + test on track (3000m fast)

Sunday :

Rest

Notes : This program lasts 2 weeks. You have to repeat for 2 times, for a total duration of 4 weeks.

Technical exercises (A) for coordination :

• 50m skipping with very high knees

• 30m bounding

• 50m heels-to-buttocks

• 20m stepping

• 45” jumping on the place with blocked knees

Repeat like circuit, starting from 5 times (try to arrive to 10 times, following your sensation)

Technical exercises (B) for strengthening :

• Squat-jumps (from 5 till 10 times)

• Short steps from the position of squat (10 meters)

• Jumping with knees to the chest

• Sagittal splits (from 30 till 40 times)

Repeat like circuit, starting from 4 times (try to arrive to 8 times, following your sensation)

CIRCUIT FOR STRENGTH ENDURANCE (on the track) :

• 200m in about 32”

• 40m bounding

• 200m in about 32”

• 10 squat-jumps

• 200m in about 32”

• 40m skipping

• 200m in about 32”

• 40m heels-to-buttocks

• 200m in about 32”

• 20 sagittal splits

• 200m fast

This is the support of FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD, and of course can be different looking at different events.

I can give you also some other example, copying from the plans I use in different periods.

At the moment I'm in US (St. Louis) for speaking in the Podium Education Project of USATF, so I don't know if I have time to answer, but because of the jet-lag, I'm not able to sleep, so I can read what happens in Letsrun....

Renato Canova wrote:

I cancelled the name of the athlete, one of top 5 in the World in Marathon.

………………’s TRAINING PROGRAMME etc

I really like those circuits. Mine are similar enough and i like to use running in between exercises on some circuits. I use 50m for acceleration and then 80m for acceleration into high speed cruise but to use 200m would mean testing the extension of the high speed cruise. It would mean less actual exercises as you've done but i can see its value. Thanks for that idea.

As for the overall program, i have already analysed it methodologically but will refrain from comment because it needs some context. So can you tell me when the peak of this program would be? July/August or Feb/Mar? And could you post the next 4 weeks as well. To give a fair opinion its only just to have more information first.

Renato Canova wrote:

In every methodological research it's clear the concept of INTERNAL LOAD, and I'm sure that Lydiard, as coach, well knew this effect. But the interpretation of his principles by the most part of his followers is wrong

Lydiard wrote a lot of books, and it seems that these have been interpreted in different ways by different people. I am not a Lydiard expert - I have only read one of his books called "Run To the Top" which had a picture of Dieter Bauman on the front cover. From what I remember, when Lydiard was talking about improving an athlete's condition during what I guess you would say is fundamantal training, he did talk about running big initial mileage. However, in contrast with Van Aaken, Lydiard said that as much of this mileage as possible should be run as "FAST aerobic running" where the athlete runs at fast pace but not crossing over to where he is running anaerobically. Over time he said that this pace should get FASTER, and that the athlete should run over the same courses to monitor how his times improved over the course of a few months. My personal conclusion from reading this book (I don't know what Lydiard was saying in his other books, lectures etc..) was that Lydiard was absolutely not advocating that an athlete should run a high volume at a relatively slow pace, keeping the same pace. It was a case of running a lot of milage at fast pace, which would continue to get faster as the athlete's condition improved.

Two runners in the 1960s who broadly followed this type of training were Ron Clarke and Derek Clayton. Ron Clarke ran 27-39 on a cinder track in Oslo, lapping every other competitor, and Derek Clayton ran 2h 08-33s for the marathon. Of course performances have improved and training methodologies have evolved slightly, but these two runners were nevertheless way ahead of their time. In fact, if we look at European standards of today, these times are still top class even though they were run almost 50 years ago.

gypsy,

I thought I wrote long posts.

By all means, ask Canova and Cabral directly when appropriate. I don't speak for anyone but me (even if I often do). I only give references so you don't waste time re-asking questions that have been answered elsewhere, and I give "my definitions", to help characterize and support my opinions to avoid misunderstandings.

Yes, the Lydiard outline could be a 6 month period. It can also be longer, by extending the first "marathon conditioning phase", if the schedule allows, or the coach/athlete wants/needs it, and by extending the last "continuation phase", for as long as required (or can be sustained). But again, this base training is never eliminated in either the "aerobic/anaerobic" or the "specific" approach. It's just defined with different terms, and narrower targeted goals.

I did a small search, but I couldn't find back the summary of how to change from Lydiard to a modern program.

You asked what supports the fundamental phase? And does it have other roles? I don't get your questions. Here it's exactly the same as Lydiard. (What supports marathon conditioning?) Renato does use a small INTRODUCTORY period, to get things started, but essentially, the FUNDAMENTAL period is the base phase or foundation which supports everything else. This is where training starts. What supports this phase is what the athlete brings into it. And the only purpose of the FUNDAMENTAL period is to support the training in the SPECIAL period (which supports the SPECIFIC period, which supports racing). I'm puzzled by your questions here.

I'm also confused about your response to aerobic support. The way you describe it, mapping it to general endurance, special endurance, and specific endurance, seems to fit in well with general, special, and specific periods. I think no one has suggested developing all 3 at the same time. With modern training, there is still a focus on developing qualities for racing -- the main difference is the set of qualities are different in the two approaches. We don't speak of universal qualities like "aerobic capacity", or "thresholds", but we speak of a customized set of qualities required for the event, and goals of extending volumes, or increasing intensity.

Even if I say so myself, I think you'll find that my impression of Lydiard is always the correct one. The early phases (marathon conditioning and hill phases), are the same for 800m to marathon. 52-53 minutes for 10 miles, while specified in precise detail, might be considered "special" or "specific" for the semi-marathon or marathon runner, but not even "general" for a 1500m runner. I've never seen any mention of differentiating training in these early Lydiard phases. It's only when athletes go to the track, that training is tailored for the athlete/event. Also, if Lydiard training is "specific" before the "time trials" in the coordination phase, it is more by chance, rather than by design.

"Holistic" was my term. I used it to mean training all the parts of the whole, together as a whole, rather than one part at a time. If I mis-used the term, the fault is all mine.

Rek,

ok lets practise brevity.

I guess the only thing which can support fundamental phase is lifestyle fitness. So in Lydiard's case he liked the idea of athletes also doing manual labour. I like this idea as well because it strengthens the layer of fitness underneath that from jogging upwards. It is the layer beneath this aerobic capacity layer. Under 120pm. how easy can we operate at that intensity, before the automatic breath even initiates. That's what i mean by support for the fundamental/general phase.

So we have this layer that the Kenyans are already highly developed in. Look at the Negro type, again lifestyle fitness is high in this population group no matter where you find it. As the individuals become more Westernised we see the shift from their natural fitness state to ours, but prior to this Westernisation the difference is large.

When i mentioned what specific role does the fundamental period have, you replied with only to support special. So it doesnt have a role in and of itself. Which for me is to develop aerobic capacity, year after year, by reducng %s of gain, similar to the reducation of gains in every other area of fitness training. Its all on a diminishing scale the closer we come to our potential. But it seems that it doesnt have a function for itself in modernised/complex approach. For this reason i say it is being devalued.

When i say i dont understand why train say 2:30 pace, 2:45 pace, 3:10 pace, 3:40 pace and 3:50 pace all in the same week, all in the fundamental period. Why all together already at the very start? Why such a mixed range? What is the philosophy behind it?

Ok i'm with you regarding Lydiard but i want to see some evidence that he definitely didn't differentiate between events prior to some point in the process. We need some evidence for this.

And holistic yes you ised but i used it in relation to this approach. Not sure whether the system or coaches claim it is holistic but it's definitely a false version of holistic to me so i pointed out why i thought that. Bit of a tangent :)