Lydiardism or Coe-Martinism???

Skuj...or whomever I'm talking to:

We are all talking here based on assumptions. Lydiard assumed it was due to too much anaerobic training (unless there was a prior conversation with Peter Coe that I didn't know about); you are assuming Coe's preparation actually went well; you're assuming his health issue was NOT due to too much anaerobic training... All I know is that Peter Coe consulted Lydiard and what Lydiard said about the issue.

It seems to me, it is "clearly" the fact that you've already made up YOUR mind what should work best and it is "absolutely clear" to me that I have made up my mind. This, of course, I'm assuming I'm responding to Skuj. It is very "clear" to me that I have NO idea whom I'm responding to.

It has been a bit confusing around here lately. My apologies for contributing to that. I guess I'll have to bite the proverbial bullet and tie myself down to one handle.

And of course you are right that we can agree to disagree. Both systems have value and we cannot go too far wrong using either one.

Absolutely (or whoever the heck you are):

You pointed out a part of Seb Coe's book (I assume) in regards to the cause of his illness. It has been discussed elsewhere the affect of anaerobic training on aerobic base. One of the biggest reasons for Lydiard's warning to excessive anaerobic training is lowering of immune system. Lowering of pH level of the blood would affectt various metabolisms in the body adversely. Even though Coe picked up this rare disease by patting a cat in Italy, he may not have if his immune system was strong. If you still believe it was a cat, don't get near one when your important race is coming up.

Also interestingly, it seems that Peter-Seb team's concern for 84 Olympics, which Seb Coe praised, was to "prepare him to "be in shape to run seven races in nine days." I'm curious to know how they went about. Of course, that was the EXACT reasoning behind the Lydiardism. I wonder which philosophy is better to achieve that; to run fast repeats day after day or to build solid endurance foundation...

I love you too, Skuj ;0)

The connection between illness and peaking has been well documented. I never thought of it as a characteristic of exclusively Coe-type training. Do Lydiard-ites share the same affliction?

Regarding the 7 races in 9 days scenario, I would argue that the Coe philosophy would better prepare one for this grueling task. It would seem that the Law of Specifity could back this up. Though a Lydiard trained athlete would certainly have the endurance capabilities necessary to complete such a regimen, it would seem the Coe plan would better prepare one to complete it a high level.

Thanks for the love. Right back at ya!

One of the things that gets to me about all these threads that involve Arthur is when one of us repeats what Arthur has said to those of us luckily enough to spend time with him, it is immediately jumped on and questioned.

Arthur had his faults but usually (in fact very rarely got it wrong) was right on the button.

This past weekend I met up with a guy who is related to me by marriage. He was one of NZ's top Cricketers and Sports Administrators. We were talking about how Arthur, when asked a question about a particular athlete's training (in this case a Rugby player)he would quite often 'wheel out' his standard 'speel' about 100 miles a week. Knowing Arthur as I did I knew I had to take the whole deal further and find out exactly what the athlete did. I found my answer.

Arthur would quite often embelish things and what that would do is make you think about what he had said.

As this relative said. Arthur always had it right,sometimes you had to take what he said and give some thought to it possibly strip some of the layers from it and "bang" there was the answer sitting there.

Nobby, I hope I have said this the right way. I don't want to be unfair to the old man.

Cheers everyone.

I believe it is a matter of public record that Coe's "glandular problem" was toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasma gondii is neither a virus nor a bacteria, it is a parasitic organism -- as are the organisms that cause malaria, although that is a very different disease. T.gondii is endemic in felines which serve as a reservoir.

It is most feared as a disease of newborns, where it can be devastating, or in immune compromised people. That latter group has included predominantly the HIV/AIDS population in recent years. Arthur Ashe died of toxoplasmosis which infected his brain in the setting of AIDS; that form of toxoplasmosis brain infection is seen almost exclusively in the immune compromised.

In the immune competent person, which presumably includes Seb Coe, the most common manifestation is lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph glands), but the disease can also involve skeletal muscle or heart muscle, among other nasty options. Certainly, even if it did not involve the muscles, I can't imagine someone trying to exercise at a world class level during the illness.

I think that if Seb Coe had a serious immune compromise (cancer, HIV, and so forth) we probably would have heard about it by now through his years in track, marriage and fatherhood, and politics. So let's (please) have no irresponsible speculation about that. As to whether hard training, aerobic or otherwise, contributed to his risk for infection, that may be the case, though I doubt we could lay the blame at any one person's training plan. Any of these systems involve hard training. Ultimately, his getting this unusual infection may have just been "one of those things . . . "

Well, the last 2 absolutely posts were not me.

I cannot register under any name.

Wejo has no explanation.

I'm finished here, folks.

Cheers

Darren Skuja

Didn't Greg LeMond develop toxoplasmosis after his gunshot accident? Not sure how that would relate to Coe, other than maybe the infection is not quite as rare among top athletes as among the general population.

When talking about athletes using either system, I guess that I should mention that El G is apparently a great follower of Coe/Martin, and at least his training schedules published from the mid-90's confirm this.

My general approach, from a coaching standpoint, is to start an athlete out with multi-pace training (MPT) the first few years, and if/when their development plateaus, then try a Lydiard-type buildup. I know this grates against the grain of "develop a huge aerobic base first" (misleading in that MPT can do this very well as others have pointed out), but in the real world I find that a novice athlete responds best to variety, and as they get more mature, can handle large-stage periodization more readily.

I was always impressed with how Arthur's athletes stayed healthy. Over the span of years that he coached and in the many different settings he coached in, it's hard to think that the healthiness was all due to luck. You simply can't make a comparison to the "Coe" system because the sample size is too small.

I recall that Rod Dixon, after getting his bronze medal in the 1,500 at Munich in 1972, attributed his good showing to the fact that he'd done much less anaerobic work in his preparation than his competitors had done. The result, he said, was that the qualifying heats sharpened him while they drained the other athletes. If I were racing seven times in nine days I'd want to be a bit underdone, anaerobically but nicely done aerobically.

As to your name problem, why don't you sign in as "skuj" but with some slight difference in the presentation. I believe that if you wrote the name in caps, or put quotation marks or parentheses around it you'd have made it different enough from your pirated and registered name that it would be allowed.

Kim,

You nailed it. Arthur was not above embellishment, but the point he was trying to make with the embellishment was almost always correct.

Skuj (or absolutely or absolute zero or absolute something):

Yeah, it's always Sebastian Coe who gets sick (therefore Coe and Dr. Matin gets endoursement from hostpital for sending a bunch of young athletes to see doctor) and none of Lydiard-trained athletes ever got sick...they only get drunk.

Now, honey, that's too much of a quick assumption and too much of generalization, isn't it? I don't know of any research done but it would be interesting to see, young high school runners of equivalent performance level, how many of them get such illness as mono and what type of training they do. I know people blame running related injuries to high mileage training but I'd be curious to see what kind of running shoes they wear when they get injured.

In regards to preparation to run 7 races in 9 days (or whatever), I'd beg to differ. If racing gets you prepared for racing best, then the best way to prepare for racing is to race all year around (or every week or every day...). We don't simply because you get over the top quickly. I think HRE explained that with the example of Rod Dixon beautifully a couple of messages ago. It's like (as Vladimir explained in van aaken thread) Mythos principles of lifting a baby calf everyday till you can lift up 2000lbs full-grown bull. We don't prepare for the marathon by running 26 miles every week, do we?

Yeah, Coe was sure "overdone" in Moscow and L.A. in the 1500 finals (after heats and finals in the 800 and 1500 heats).....

Sits on a Ritz wrote:

Yeah, Coe was sure "overdone" in Moscow and L.A. in the 1500 finals (after heats and finals in the 800 and 1500 heats).....

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh?

The type of illness I was referring to is more likely to be a common cold than mono. There seems to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that peaking corresponds to an increase in such a malady. I'm not convinced that a Lydiard trained athlete is any less likely to get ill at this training point. Just wondering if anyone could offer anything either way.

And I chuckled at your "racing gets you prepared for racing best" thought. Of course, racing everyday is no way to train someone even if you believe in the maxim "if it don't kill you, it's good for you." The Coe method allows for reasonable intensity with the proper recovery, thus providing a realistic plan for someone racing 7 times in 9 days (a silly idea in itself, but I digress). I am sure a Lydiard runner would have the strength to pull of such a feat, but I doubt the quality would be the same.

Kim:

As HRE once said somewhere else; Lydiard method is not for idiots (to someone asking for "idiot-proof explanation of the Lydiard program"). Nothing can be closer to the truth than that statement. You really need to understand what message Lydiard was trying to send. That includes his statement that Snell was running 150 miles a week including morning jog. Snell denies it. But if you're hooked with the simple numbers, you'll miss the point. What you've got between your ears shouldn't be just a hair-ball, or is it?

Skuj:

This I'd have to totally agree with you (wow, doesn't happen often!); having athletes to run 7 races in 9 days is absolutely insane (particularly when you have to place top 2 to advance!)! Same with running over such a killer course for the marathon in the 30 degree (C) condition. Some officials just decided that this is the way it goes. Crazy. It just gives so much advantage to Lydiard-like strength type runners!

By the way, why do you "doubt that the quality would the same"? Because they don't bust their guts on track 52 weeks a year?

Okay, sorry Skuj; I "assumed" with the above statement. I should have let you explain first. My apology. So why not the same quality?

Nobby wrote:

In regards to preparation to run 7 races in 9 days (or whatever), I'd beg to differ. If racing gets you prepared for racing best, then the best way to prepare for racing is to race all year around (or every week or every day...).

Not to agree with the guy you're debating, but I don't think that saying that, "racing gets you prepared for racing best" is the same thing as saying that you must race every day.