Oh, so many replies... Hope you don't mind if consolidate it into one.
sound of silence wrote:
I see….You miss to understand the basics of training. It’s why you think Lydiard it’s right and I’m wrong.
You misunderstand my basic purpose. I don't claim Lydiard is right or wrong. On the contrary, wherever he is wrong, I'd like to see a good argument about what exactly makes it wrong, and what possible improvements would be.
I claim what you say about what Lydiard believes is wrong. You mischaracterize Lydiard, and then draw wrong conclusions. If you want to criticize what Lydiard believes, get Lydiard's beliefs right first, then criticize the result.
The quotes you provide as evidence don't say what you say they say, and don't support your conclusions. I don't argue your conclusions about training are wrong (or right), just that they are not different from Lydiard's. It's almost as if you are fabricating beliefs for the sole purpose of smearing Lydiard's name and method.
sound of silence wrote:
Complete recoveries don't get each single interval (one single fast distance)out of the anaerobic zone. It's what you don't understand. You may do 48 hours interval in between one single interval and the other (I hope 48 hours it’s complete recovery for you). Each one of the sets separate 48 hours doesn’t go out of the anaerobic zone. The longer you recover down to complete recovery doesn’t take each interval single set out of the anaerobic zone but the contrary. If you go kind of your best effort for the distance the longer intervals able to go more deeply into the anaerobic zone because long recovery able faster pace and faster pace more anaerobic. On the contrary shorter recovery enable faster pace an consequently it’s more aerobic.
Side note: I presume you didn't mean: "shorter recovery enable faster pace an consequently it’s more aerobic"? Otherwise, you say both shorter and longer recoveries enable a faster pace, and then I really must misunderstand the basics.
Anyway, I understand all that. I don't understand why you think I'm confused.
In summary, you are arguing that shorter recoveries make workouts more aerobic, and longer recoveries (except 48 hours is ridiculous) make workouts anaerobic. I think I've only argued that all along, and that Lydiard believes the same thing too, and not the opposite, as you originally claimed. I don't see the contradiction. No one (not me, not you, not Lydiard, only the Americans) believes that short recoveries make workouts more anaerobic.
I used the term "complete recovery", as opposed to "partial recovery", because I thought that you might understand that better. In the quoted article, Lydiard's problem with the Americans (besides burning out their young kids) are that the recoveries are too short, or in other words, not complete. What he likes about (what he heard about) the Moroccans (whether they really did it or not) is that they make the recoveries long enough, even longer, or in other words, complete. If a complete recovery after an 800m rep is 5 minutes, making it 3 minutes becomes incomplete, while making it 8 minutes is also complete.
Lydiard argued (elsewhere, where he really explained his beliefs about anaerobic training in some more detail) that longer recoveries allow you to achieve a higher volume of work, and therefore an overall lower pH. This is exactly the same thing as when you say "go more deeply into the anaerobic zone". Shorter recoveries would tire the athlete too quickly, and either force an early termination of the workout, resulting in a lower volume of work, or force the pace slower, reducing the quality of the workout. Either way, shorter recoveries make the workout less effective. I don't see how that differs materially from what you just explained. It's like you are just unknowingly rephrasing exactly what Lydiard says, and then saying he's wrong.
sound of silence wrote:
Then the name is wrong. It's not anaerobic interval training, it’s not anaerobic neither training. Training it’s an organized stimulus based in methodology and this Lydiard don’t. It’s chaotic training the fast way.
Terminology is a valid point. The way Lydiard used some terms are not always they way they are used today. You have to dig beyond the terms, and understand what he means to say with the terms. You said you knew what he means to say -- but I have serious doubts. A lot of pointless discussion hinges around whether things are truly anaerobic or aerobic (e.g. your latest question). This can be avoided though, once you realize that his goal for anaerobic training is lowering the blood pH, which is evidence of sufficient anaerobic stimuation, regardless if the workout or reps or anything else are also aerobic.
Again, I thought you knew Lydiard better than me. Once again, when you understand the Lydiard methodology, you will see there is no conflict or chaos, but still an underlying method to the madness. Lydiard describes his methodology in terms of building "aerobic capacity" as a foundation, then putting "anaerobic capacity" on top. Of course he preferred to lay out a plan, and incorporate all the recommended phases, but sometimes the schedules of reality (e.g. athlete illness or injury or long racing season) force compromises. If your training schedule and racing schedule doesn't permit the necessary time for training, "racing" (e.g. 5K) can be an acceptable substitute for "anaerobic training", keeping in mind that you won't be fully trained for the first races.
sound of silence wrote:
Good...good. First you say that during the anaerobic training the training becomes more specific to the athelete and his event.
Later you say that Lydiard considered anaerobic interval training the least important aspect of training and that if time was short, and the racing was long, you could skip the interval work completely, and just race yourself into shape.
Training individualisation for different runners and different events requires accuracy, attention, discipline, one precise plan, not skip the workout, just trace yourself into shape.
I see. Lydiard individualisation it's let it be. In fact Lydiard doesn't training individualisation indeed.
Yes, the anaerobic, coordination, tapering, and racing phases of the 800m runner are different than the marathon runner. I still don't see your conflict. Maybe I confused things by introducing a new fact, but "racing yourself into shape", is clearly a compromise (due to external reasons) which is still in line with the methodology.
sound of silence wrote:
Are you able to deny that Lydiard doesn’t say that 20X400m fast is anaerobic training ? Everyone of you is able to dismiss me that Lydiard doesn’t say that 20X400m fast pace is anaerobic ? Everyone is able to deny such evidence ?
Some might say he speaks about in special situation. Young Americans doing wrong. It true. Some say it’s one different context, the young Americans and the Moroccans. Some say it’s equal recovery, some say it shall be done complete recovery, some say it depends of the pace. Some say it´s the ph.
Nothing of this is relevant or changes what Lydiard says. He says that 20X400m is anaerobic.
This is what you take away from this quote? That Lydiard believes that 20x400m is anaerobic? (You originally linked Lydiard's belief to the length of recovery, getting it backwards, not the actual reps and number of reps). What the evidence shows: Lydiard believes the that 20x400m intervals are a bad example of anaerobic training. He's using this as an example of how not to do anaerobic training, because that's what Americans are doing too much of, when they do anaerobic training. In this context, it's because the workouts would overstress the nervous systems of young kids, but elsewhere he would say that 8K of work is too much volume, and the way Americans use short recovery intervals make it even worse. To make it a better "anaerobic training", he might say instead to do 6x800m, running one, jogging one, until you know you are tired.