Lydiard vs Coe vs Daniels

Pete wrote:

(It would be great if Hadd would join in on this thread. There's been a lot of good input amongst the inevitable inane pettiness)

Dear Pete -

Please open your eyes and pay attention. "Hadd" is John Kellog, aka FWRUNCO, aka "stop the pigeon"

Open your eyes wrote:Dear Pete -

Please open your eyes and pay attention. "Hadd" is John Kellog, aka FWRUNCO, aka "stop the pigeon"

Put away the crack buddy.

In the first place, I'm fairly confident that Hadd and JK are two different people. There are some similarities in the concepts they've both posted, but there are also some marked differences.

In the second place, whoever the other folks are that you've named, neither they nor JK have posted on this thread.

Do you want to bet on it?

I'll wager a significant sum that Hadd isn't JK.

I agree. But how would you prove it, my friend?

Well, first of all, I don't want to shut down this very interesting thread. So, if someone has any more non-whiny thoughts on the thread, please don't let this divergence stop you.

TC, for enough dosh (enough that would make it worth Hadd's & JK's time/effort & overcome their general pissed-offness (smile)), I imagine we could produce both of them at "open your eyes'" doorstep with proof in hand.

Otherwise, you're right.. proving it over the boards would be impossible, nor would I want to try.

Joe,

many thanks for the synopsis. as i noted, i have the book (Coe/Martin) but have not read it in many years. i'll have to dig it out again soon!

also interesting, if i recall, was the emphasis in the book on form and strength work. Martin spends some time discussing biomechanical efficiency--i'll never forget the photo of men's 800 or 1500 with someone (ovett's) feet splayed out. also a significant section on weight training.

now if only we could get jtupper to weigh in again!

greg

JEH -

Why don't you go ask Weldon Johnson who Hadd is?

wow you got me. You MUST be right. In fact, you're probably Weldon himself (or at least Rojo).

I take it you're not willing to put up the $$$$ ?

or maybe you can try the Forth Worth Running Company in Texas?

$$$$ ?

greg ward wrote:

also interesting, if i recall, was the emphasis in the book on form and strength work. Martin spends some time discussing biomechanical efficiency--i'll never forget the photo of men's 800 or 1500 with someone (ovett's) feet splayed out. also a significant section on weight training.

greg

Greg,

I don't know if form, strength was the emphasis necessarily, but the book appears to be written in an attempt to cover every aspect of training the modern distance runner would want information on at that time. Therefore there is a lot of info on strength training, form, physiology in addition to training schedules, Surprisingly little on plyos though.

The guy with the feet splayed out was Cram, although it seems to me if a guy holds the WR and has a bit of poor form, that's minor thing. But I guess at that level the point is to worry about the minor things.

The athletes I get have a long ways to go to get to the level of a guy like Cram, so I tend to view the whole discussion on training in terms of the following: let's get the basic training right first, then we worry about the ancillary stuff like weights. So I want someone to get in the habit of doing their double days and long runs and tempos and 200, 300, 400, 800, 1k's, hill reps, strides and the rest of it and do it for a few seasons first before we start looking at things like plyos for the answer. In most cases, we get substantial improvement by focusing on just plain training with the bulk of the elements that make up the backbone of the top distance runner's schedules.

Once I have someone incorporate the basic components and improves using them, they tend to worry much less about things like weights and plyos because at that point they get it.

Joe

I just run how I feel and kick ass in races

Joe,

again, thanks for the response. that was actually an error on my part; i had been typing about the "additional point of emphasis" absent in Lydiard but in Coe/Martin, and then changed my post. i should have changed that to "difference" before posting. [lesson = PROOFREAD!]

mostly, though, i appreciate your post. as someone getting back into things after an injury-induced (and subsequently laziness-induced) layoff, i had been wondering the order of incorporation, if you will.

previously, i had done just running (h.s., early college). in college i added weights and circuits. in grad school i modified the weight routine to be more running specific (from a Dutch friend of mine) and added some plyometrics. ideally, i'd like to have those back, as i felt a little more "pop" when it came time to change gears or throw a surge after cresting a hill.

in short, it was interesting to read that you focus (as i would, were i coaching runners in the first few years of their development) on the RUNNING. would you recommend anything different to a comebacker such as myself? (i'm sure there are plenty more on the board) i've always been curious as to whether some well-placed circuit, form, and plyo work early into re-entry to training might either a) accelerate improvement back to competitive levels, or b) assist in raising the performances once competition begins, through form improvements and increased flexibility.

ever curious,

greg

greg ward wrote: would you recommend anything different to a comebacker such as myself? (i'm sure there are plenty more on the board) i've always been curious as to whether some well-placed circuit, form, and plyo work early into re-entry to training might either a) accelerate improvement back to competitive levels, or b) assist in raising the performances once competition begins, through form improvements and increased flexibility.

ever curious,

greg

Greg,

I always start with the running stuff cause that's what I understand. I also understand a guy in mid life has limited time each day to do this running stuff. Figure maybe 60 minutes most days if you have a family, career, plus things in life that get in the way. That being the case, I usually prescribe a very basic program. Do a little bit of work consistently in all areas listed and start the process of getting fit from ground zero. I'm sure you can run plenty of miles, they just happen to be slow. If you're gonna race, you gotta start incorporating the elements of training that competitive runners use consistently. Just take it slow, train regularly with consistent work in all areas of fitness and race cause that will tell ya all you need to know.

As far as the workouts go, I would just take half of what you think is a good workout and start there. So if you look at 16 x 200 w/ 200 jog and say "I can do that", start w/ 8 instead. If you think 6 x 1600 w/ a 400 jog is easy, start with 3. If a 16 miler with the last 4 hammering looks like a walk in the park, instead start with an 8 miler and do the last 2 hard. Same for the long run, cut it in half. It may seem too easy, but you'll adapt, start to feel strong again and you'll be on your way.

I used this with my wife after she took 6 months off to have our baby. One year after she started up again she had set PR's at the mile (5:35), 5k (19:01), 4 miles and 12k (forgot her time, but she made the Asics Aggie centipede her first time ever) - then she got pregnant again. Probably would have PR'd in other events too if she would have run them. She was all conference in the 5,000 and 10k at Cal Poly in college so she was competitive 11 years ago. She said the workout I had her intially were too easy and stupid (ie 8 x 200 at 51 seconds - yes 51 seconds, 7 min pace), but she was consistent, ran within herself and each month she got better. That and she raced consistently. Got her butt kicked initially, but she steadily improved. Most important was she ran PR's using the stupid method running 6 days per week, 40 miles per week, working 35 hours a week and handling our 1 year old at the same time. Not a heroic workload at all, less than she did when she ran her old PR's. All she did was a little work in all areas of fitness every 2 weeks or so and did it at a level she could tolerate.

I'm guessing if it worked for her, it would work for you.

Joe

I have also found that holding back people with busy lives makes for a better future. I recall that one man who wrote to me about whether he thought his training was good enough to get him close to his old college best times. He was 31, working as a computer engineer, not a physically taxing job but mentally it was, a father of three kids (youngest was 2), and a very dedicated family man. His mileage was in the 50-60 range which was less than he ran in college (he ran 70s his senior year). He had been doing some fartlek workouts and some 16 x 400m workouts plus a race or two every month.

It was apparent that the man had his plate full, and then some. I asked him how important it was to improve upon his old personal bests and he replied that he really wanted to do so, but he felt guilty any time he was away training from his family. I told him that your health and your family come first, in my opinion, so if you gotta choose, in the long term you will be glad that your kids and your wife saw you more often.

He ended up running 5-6 days per week, about 40 miles per week, for the next 8 months. I suggested that one longer run, one fartlek workout of 3-5 minute pickups at about 80-85% effort, plus one race or one hard tempo run per week would be good enough. He decided what to do on the other days and I structured his key workouts, which really didn't change much the whole 8-month period.

The long run was almost always 10-12 miles. The fartlek session was over 8 miles, doing 4-5 pickups. The hard tempo runs, in place of Saturday races (he didn't run on Sundays for religious reasons) were were usually 4-5 miles in length at about 85-90% of max effort (probably about 10 seconds per mile over maximum effort). He did some striders here and there but only during easy day runs to loosen up. Most of the easy day runs were around 5-6 miles slow.

He ran a 15:38 5k race doing that basic schedule. His p.r. for the 5k was 15:21 in college, set some 9 years earlier on much heavier training. More importantly, he had time and energy for his family. To some folks, that is just what the doctor ordered. I guess we can't all be striving for the Olympic Games, although most of us dream about it. Tinman

Open your eyes wrote:

Do you want to bet on it?

I'll take any bet that Hadd is not John Kellogg.

bust her wrote:

"I'd say the reason is a lack understanding on that someone's part."

Well that was so obviously pointed at me. I do see the influence. But I also see the differences too. Enough to say it is unique and not Lydiard. Some on here are too wrapped up in Lydiard being the only way that they think everything is Lydiard.HRE have you ever read anything other than Lydiard and actually given it a try.

Absolutely. The first running book that really influenced me was Joe Henderson's "LSD; The Humane Way to Train." When I got to know Joe he told me that he was inspired by Lydiard. Then I sort of imitated Ron Clarke. Turns out he was influenced by Lydiard. I've read Hadd and Ernst van Aaken. Hadd admits that he's a fan of Lydiard. Van Aaken really is not influenced by Lydiard, but the systems are similar. I've read Jack Daniles and don't see that he's improved on Arthur or Clarkey or Ernie. I've read Malmo's diaries and Hodgie-san's diaries and don't see much in them that contradicts Arthur. I've read some of Peter Coe's stuff but frankly don't think Peter has coached enough runners to make judgements about the effectiveness of his approach. I've read Bowerman and see a lot of Lydiard there.

As to what's different about Ethiopian training and Lydiard's, I have to say again that Arthur has different people do different things, all following the same principles. Off hand, I forget if there is specific hill work in what the Ethiopians do. If not, that's different. If there is, I see no significant inconsistencies.

You are absolutely correct. The "else L would be a dogmatist" refers to trackhead's propensity to say "but Lydiard is not a dogmatist" as an explanation for any non-Lydiard feature in a training program that is ostensively Lydiard. This ability to explain away any violation of principle would seem to preclude actually holding to a principle, hence the "there are no Lydiard principles"

The example of the judical system is a good one, illustrative of many problems with analogues in the debate at hand. Clearly our moral and judicial principles do not account for all that transpires in the criminal justice system. On the other hand we clearly expect them to have some bearing. If people are being lynched in Texas, is this just? How do you explain to the lynch mob the difference between a lynching and a judicial execution? By principles? Is there in fact a principled difference?

But regarding the dogmatism it is not the precison or exactitude of the principle, that makes it dogma, but the lack of examination of the grounds for holding the principle. I may have good reason for my belief that I should run 5k at 15:00 exactly every day regarless of circumstances. I may do studies which test the ground for this belief.