Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

I have in front of me 2 interesting Lydiard schedules. One is the 1964 Peter Snell day-by-day complete training plan. Some workouts of the 1964 schedule were done by Ron Davies and Peter Snell together for the Tokyo Olympics . The second one important schedule that i have is 1974 Pekka Vasala when he travels to NZ to be with Lydiard is coached in NZ in the presence of mr. Lydiard. This schedule gave me Pekka Vasala himself. It´s a day-by-day training log.

Would you be willing to type those out? Or scan them and email them to letsrun.com, I'm sure the Brojos would be interested to see them and do the right thing to get them posted.

You'd be doing us all a great service.

BTW Kim, you may not recall the transaction, but my dusty copy of "Run to the Top" comes second hand from you. Thanks.

mamla wrote:

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

I have in front of me 2 interesting Lydiard schedules. One is the 1964 Peter Snell day-by-day complete training plan. Some workouts of the 1964 schedule were done by Ron Davies and Peter Snell together for the Tokyo Olympics . The second one important schedule that i have is 1974 Pekka Vasala when he travels to NZ to be with Lydiard is coached in NZ in the presence of mr. Lydiard. This schedule gave me Pekka Vasala himself. It´s a day-by-day training log.

Would you be willing to type those out? Or scan them and email them to letsrun.com, I'm sure the Brojos would be interested to see them and do the right thing to get them posted.

You'd be doing us all a great service.

I have many things of that kind in my archive.

If they pay me well, it´s a possibility.

Just on Snell doing no "specific" work, these are some of the sessions leading up to his mile and 800m wrs in early 1962 (taken from KL's H.I.T. book)..4.10 mile (58.6 last lap), 9.18 2 mile, 3/4 mile 3.04.5, 1.52/4.15 double, 10 x 880 2.10, 9.12 2 mile, 10 x 440 ave 59.8, 1.51 880, 14.23 3 mile, 440 50, 880 1.48.2, 880 1.47.1. He was also doing other sessions of track work which ween't described in detail.

The work he was doing seemed designed to boost his mile capacity more than focusing on the 1/2 mile. Probably also thinking long term about his chances of doubling at both the 62Comm. Games and 64 Olympics, which of course he did successfully in both.

rekrunner

I agree that time-trial and solo race is the kind of specific work and you are right again that does qualify the intervals.

The Murray Halberg it´s a your rich example. When Peter Snell does 600s in 1:19 in one run against John Davies with 400m split in 53secs (*) is does 800m-1500m one specific workout. Or when Peter did 1 mile in 4:02, one half week before the first heart of the Tokyo games is did another specific workout. When Pekka Vasala does 3X600m for 1:20 he did specific training. The problem is that kind of workouts are sparsely and done only during one short training period.

When in the late 50s, to the 60s or up to the early 70s Lydiard training was the modern one, the best one, if the Lydiard runner got run talent, he took some advantage from the other runner that trains with an another method. Just look at the results of some results from the Lydiard runners.

The running history repeats what did happen in the past. In fact the Lydiard training competing side-by-side with modern in date training methodology can produce some interesting results, but actually Lydiard training declines in performance enhance competing with other training method that is modern.

ONE. Most of the modern training methodology uses different season periodization and uses different training variables on that season periodization. In the modern training the specific workouts starts early in the season and not so late as Lydiard does. The Lydiard specific phase it´s one small percent of the specific training that might be done during the season periodization. It´s a fact that you can´t deny that the Lydiard method refuses to introduce specific workouts earlier on and uses specific workouts only in a late short limited period. In part, the reason why the Lydiard training does it that way, it´s because the Lydiard periodization is a “linear one”, what is another old past concept that places the Lydiard training as outdate. When I mean early introduce of specific workouts, I mean progressive specific workouts.

TWO is that the Lydiard training does the typical long runs on every week during every block. Or we may discuss if the Lydiard long run is good or necessary for different distance events. But you can´t deny that is not specific training for every distance event except for the marathon. For example, when both Peter Snell and Pekka Vasala did one long run on every week, until the last week relate to the target competition of the season it´s outdate. The long run is DETRIMENTAL to the specifics. Mostly because in the training rule of overcompensation before and after each specific workout it might be done recover runs.

THREE. You can´t say that anaerobic training and/or fast-speed training is specific training. It´s not true. For example 8minutes run time-trial, often used in the Lydiard training, isn´t one specific workout if I think about one 800m or 1500m runner. Otherwise all that is fast is one specific workout. Something similar with the in-out 50-50mts fast-not so fast that Lydiard training uses in the late weeks before the competition, or 20X200m for the

5000m-10000m runner. No one of that workouts is specific training.

FOUR. Another transversal problem is that in the modern training the Lydiard variants are upside down. In the modern training the interval training as well as most of the hill training is done during the introductory phase, early in the season. The inadequacy of how to place that variables is because Lydiard thinks that the kind of workouts like 20X200m at 1 / 4 or 10X400m in 58.5 is peter Snell anaerobic training as Lydiard considers, or 10X400m for 60.2 is Pekka Vasala anaerobic training, when it´s mainly one aerobic workout.

(*) – In an old discuss with HRE on one past post about training individualization, I said that Peter Snell and John Davies did the same training and in some occasions they did the same training both together before 64 olympics, with no training individualization. He did reply me and tried to say I have no prove that they did the same training, but I do. I can say what´s the place, the day and the hour of the day they did it together.

This was extremely informative. Thanks.

mopak wrote:

Just on Snell doing no "specific" work, these are some of the sessions leading up to his mile and 800m wrs in early 1962 (taken from KL's H.I.T. book)..4.10 mile (58.6 last lap), 9.18 2 mile, 3/4 mile 3.04.5, 1.52/4.15 double, 10 x 880 2.10, 9.12 2 mile, 10 x 440 ave 59.8, 1.51 880, 14.23 3 mile, 440 50, 880 1.48.2, 880 1.47.1. He was also doing other sessions of track work which ween't described in detail.

The work he was doing seemed designed to boost his mile capacity more than focusing on the 1/2 mile. Probably also thinking long term about his chances of doubling at both the 62Comm. Games and 64 Olympics, which of course he did successfully in both.

You wrote several kind of training workouts and not all is specific. Some of it should be done during the aerobic phase as the modern training does.

It´s true that in 64 Lydiard training was one of the modern in-date trainings of that all, and Peter and some other Lydiard runners did good results. But from ten on the results from the Lydiard method did decline. From time to time we see one Lydiard runners doing good. But since the Lydiard training is outdate mainly because best distance run approach comes to scene with best variable training criteria the number of chances of the Lydiard training is very limited in competition with other modern training methods, Actually the Lydiard training is outdate, and it´s the reason why the Lydiard training can´t produce no more another Peter Snell, or as to say. mighty produce another Peter Snell or another Pekka Vasala, but today´s 800m runners with the 400m basic speed of Peter Snell they do best than 1:44. The 1500m/millers that did 1:46 are able to run 3:30 and Peter Snell or Pekka with Lydiard training can´t run faster than 3:36-3:37 what is not enough to compete and win with modern runners that are coached by modern methods.

Similar situation in long distance events. Lasse Viren by the way. Wit altitude training done by Lydiard influence and with blood doping he could run faster than 13:16 and 27:38, what were earlier world records when the Lydiard training was on the top of best training methods. Viren did double 5000m-10000m and wins in 2 olympics, but then the Lydiard training starts to be outdate and more modern training arrives in the scene and actually many runners did sub 13:00 and sub 27:00, but with other training methods.

You say Peter Snell did win in 60 and 64. But Ken Bekele also did win in 2 olympics many world champs, and did win many WCCC. Besides he did 3:32.35, 7:25, 12:37 and 26:17.53. Sould I train by Lydiard method Bekele method ? Another example El Guerrouj.

If the interest of one training method is just about who wins and what performance the runners does, then I will choose Bekele and El Guerrouj method or every other that did best than Peter Snell or John Davies or Murray Halberg as they are so many.

It´s true that in 64 Lydiard training was one of the modern in-date trainings of that all, and peter and some other did good results. Actually is outdate, and it´s the reason why the Lydiard training can´t produce no more another Peter Snell, or as to say. mighty produce another Peter Snell and another Pekka Vasala, but today´s millers that did 1:46 are abel tio run 3:30 and peter Snell or Pekka with Lydaird training can´t run faster than 3:36-3:37 what is not enough to win with modern runners that are coached by modrn methods.

Similar situation with Lasse Viren. Training in altitude by Lydaird influence and with blood doping he could run faster than 13:16 and 27:38 what were earlier world records, and he did double 5000m-10000m wins in 2 olympics, but tehn the Lydiard training starts to be outdate and more modernm training arrives on teh scene and actually many runners did sub 13:00 and sub 27:00

So, I can see the "specific" difference in the two approaches. The training you say is "not specific", I agree it's "not specific". Regarding your point THREE, just to be clear, I never said that Lydiard's "anaerobic training" was "specific", just the subsequent time trials and development races afterwards.

If you say it's "too sparse" and "during one short training period", I can understand your concern, for example, when comparing it to Canova's descriptions and examples. That's a little different than saying the concept is missing, but I see your point better now.

The Lydiard phased approach leaves each phase supporting the next ones, while modern approaches introduce a training "complexity" earlier in the training, with a clear pattern of "specific" training progression.

Are you familiar with Robert de Castella's training? Trained by Pat Clohessey, they were influenced by Lydiard's concepts, including long runs and high mileage, but didn't agree with the periodization, instead favoring of a "complex" approach, leaving him race ready year round.

Would you say that was a big improvement and step towards modern methodology?

Out of my poor English the LetRunCom writes different words and different characters and add some others to what I write and this cause misunderstand of what I write. I decide to post it once again in the hope that i what I write don´t be so wrong type match. Let´s see if this time my changes in the text are done and my text goes as I write.

rekrunner

I agree that time-trial and solo race is the kind of specific work and you are right again that does qualify the intervals.

The Murray Halberg it´s your rich example. When Peter Snell does 600s in 1:19 in one run against John Davies with 400m split in 53secs (*) he does one 800m-1500m specific workout. Or when Peter did 1 mile in 4:02, one and half week before the first heat of the Tokyo Games he did another specific workout. When Pekka Vasala does 3X600m for 1:20 he did 1500m specific training.

The problem is that those kind of workouts are sparsely and done only during one short training period.

One of the main characteristics of the modern distance training is that he does a high frequency and high level of specificity.

When in the late 50s, the 60s or the early 70s Lydiard training was the modern one, the best one, if the Lydiard runner got top talent, he took some advantage from the other runner that trains with an another method. This explains the success of the Lydiard runners at that past period. Just look at some the results of the elite of Lydiard runners.

The running history repeats what did happen in the past. Actually, the Lydiard training competing side-by-side with modern in date training methodology can produce some interesting results, but Lydiard training actually declines in performance enhance competing with other training method.

ONE. Most of the modern training methodology uses different season periodization and uses different training variables on that season periodization.

In the modern training the specific workouts starts early in the season and not so late as Lydiard does.

The Lydiard specific phase it´s one small percent of the specific training that might be done during the season periodization. It´s a fact that you can´t deny that the Lydiard method refuses to introduce specific workouts earlier on and uses specific workouts only in late short limited period. In part, the reason why the Lydiard training does it that way, it´s because the Lydiard periodization is a “linear one”, what is another old past concept that places the Lydiard training as outdate. When I mean introduce of specific workouts earlier in the season, I mean progressive specific workouts.

TWO. Lydiard training does the typical long runs on every week during every block. Or, we may discuss if the Lydiard long run is good or necessary for different distance events. But you can´t deny that is not specific training for every distance event except for the marathon. For example, when both Peter Snell and Pekka Vasala did one long run on every week, until the last week relate to the target competition of the season this procedure is outdate. The long run is DETRIMENTAL to the specifics. Mostly because in the training rule of overcompensation, before and after each specific workout, what might be done is recover runs.

THREE. You can´t say that anaerobic training and/or fast-speed training is specific training. It´s not true. For example 8minutes run time-trial, often used in the Lydiard training, isn´t one specific workout if I think about one 800m or 1500m runner. Otherwise all that is fast IS NOT one specific workout. Something similar with the in-out 50-50mts fast-not so fast that Lydiard training uses in the late weeks before the competition, or 20X200m for the 5000m-10000m runner. No one of that workouts is specific training. It´s fast training but not specific training.

FOUR. Another transversal problem is that in the modern training, the Lydiard variants are done upside down. In the modern training the interval training, as well as most of the hill training, is done during the introductory phase, early in the season. The inadequacy of how to place that variables is because Lydiard thinks that the kind of workouts like 20X200m at 1 / 4 or 10X400m in 58.5 is Peter Snell anaerobic training, or 10X400m for 60.2 is Pekka Vasala anaerobic training, when it´s mainly one fast aerobic power workout.

(*) – In an old discuss with HRE on one past post of another thread about in the issue of training individualization i said that Peter Snell and John Davies did the same training, and in some occasions they did the same training both together before 64 olympics, with no training individualization. HRE reply me and tried to say I have no prove that they did the same training, but I do. I can say what´s the place, the day and the hour of the day they did it together.

I don't know the original words, but poor English and some spelling mistakes aside, I think your points were fairly clear.

rekrunner, Thanks for that, I did not 'click' that you had gotten your copy of "Run to the Top" from me. I don't recall who you are specificly as I have sold many copies of that book across the World. Flick me an email, i will remember then.

You are doing an awesome job of 'interpreting" Arthur's work. It took me years to get to understand where he was coming from.

Khadaffi: I am sorry that you will not put up the information you have on the Vasala/Snell training. I note that Bob Schul is doing so on another thread. Interesting stuff !!

Regarding Snell and Davies training together for those workouts .. that is correct but it was only when John was in Auckland on some weekends or when the Team assembled prior to going to Tokyo.

John lived and worked in a Town called Tokoroa about 60km from where I am . He trained with Local athletes .. including Mike Ryan who later went on to get an oly bronze in the marathon.

John did all his Hill training phase back in Tokoroa with that crew and also used to tell the story about Arthur taking him around Auckland showing him how the guys did that phase and how he needed to work out how he was going to run his sessions.

The decline of NZ running had as much to do with Social and economic factors in this country as it did with the departure of Arthur from these shores. He was always a controversial character and he had many a battle with the authorities.

As far as Arthur ideas not being modern .. take a look at the 2004 Oly Triathlon Championship .. NZ 1st and 2nd .. the athletes/coaches involved talk of using Lydiard principles .. So does Ian Ferguson who won quite a number of Oly Gold canoeing races (1984 -88)

Lastly, look at Nick Willis .. In interviews lately he has talked about going back to "Lydiard" principles now he is over the injury he has had for a number of years.

Kadaffi : I see your points ... I would like to reply now but need to go to Work and then later meet some athletes for a run. So catch you later.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Lastly, look at Nick Willis .. In interviews lately he has talked about going back to "Lydiard" principles now he is over the injury he has had for a number of years.

I often think of Willis (and Mottram) when these types of debates spring up.

I believe that there is a fundamental disconnect in these discussions, because tales of success via Lydiard is so often told through the lens of the everyman, whereas those espousing on the benefits of modern training are typically dealing with elites, and often Africans.

Most North American runners are lacking in aerobic ability, especially in comparison with our Kenyan brethren. It seems that what's best for us would be totally different than what's best for them. I have seen limited gains in doing the high-end, speed endurance type work for 10km XC. I believe this is due insufficient work on the the true weakest link, which is high-end, long aerobic efforts.

We will see if my theory holds up this summer after a winter of primarily long, hard runs.

I'll send you a short e-mail. It was a few years back, so I didn't expect you to remember.

Thanks for the assessment. Right now, I'm trying to minimize any of my interpretations, except to correct one thing I thought was wrong.

But as I said before, I'm only trying to explore further "exactly what is wrong?" "Khadaffi out of power" said it right "I want to hear his ideas, whether I agree or not.", at least to better understand the issues.

Usually these threads degrade before my questions get answered. I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I think it's gone a couple steps further than I've ever seen it go, and, if my memory is right, I'm still looking forward to at least one more comment on "training individualization".

Kadaffi out of power wrote:

I have many things of that kind in my archive.

If they pay me well, it´s a possibility.

Seriously? Jerk.

Kim Stevenson:

Although Willis says that he's going back to "Lydiard" principles, those same principles that Nick Willis uses are the same principles that have existed BEFORE Lydiard. Coach Ronnie Warhust is his coach, not Lydiard. Here's a sample of Nick Willis' training from April-July 2004:

APRIL 19-25

Monday

Arb Hills (4x -- 3:26 pace)

Interval Run: 300 (0:46), 400 (1:04), 600 (1:34), 800 (2:09, 1,000 (2:42)

Tuesday

Off

Wednesday

AM - 4 miles (perimeter of U-M Golf Course)

PM - 8 miles (6:00/mile) & Strides: 6x150

Thursday

Interval Run: Mile (4:30), 2x400 (0:56), Mile (4:30), 2x600, Mile (4:29)

Friday

8 miles (Road)

Saturday

Warmup: 3 miles

Tempo Run: 4 miles (5:00/mile)

Cooldown: 3 miles

Interval Run: 3x400 (0:56, 0:57, 0:59)

Sunday

15 miles (5:50/mile)

Total Weekly Mileage

77 miles

-----------------------------0-----------------------------

APRIL 26 - MAY 2ND

Monday

AM - 4 miles (perimeter of U-M Golf Course)

PM - 6 miles

Tuesday

Michigan

Wednesday

AM - 4 miles (perimeter of U-M Golf Course)

PM - 8 miles (Road)

Thursday

Off

Friday

AM - 2 miles

PM - 6 miles & Interval Run: 6x100

Saturday (Race Day: Jesse Owens Classic)

Warmup: 3 miles

800-meter run (3rd place/1:49:23)

Cooldown: 3 miles

Sunday

16 miles (Road)

Total Weekly Mileage

73 miles

----------------------------0-------------------------

May 3rd - May 9th

Monday

AM - 4 miles (perimeter of U-M Golf Course)

PM - 16x400 (0:66 w/ every fourth 400m at 0:61)

Tuesday

Off

Wednesday

AM - 8 miles (First 4 miles: 6:30/mile; second 4 miles: 5:20/mile)

PM - Warmup: 3 miles, Interval Run: 6x150 (0:24), Cooldown: 3 miles

Thursday

AM - 2 miles

PM - 6 miles & 6x100

Friday (Race Day: Len Paddock Invitational)

AM - 2 miles

1200m time trial (2:56) during 1500-meter run

Interval Run: 3x600 (1:30)

Saturday

16 miles (Hilly Trails @ 6:00/mile)

Sunday

4 miles (Road)

Total Weekly Mileage

70 miles

--------------------------------0------------------------

May 10th - May 16th

Monday

AM - 4 miles (perimeter of U-M Golf Course)

PM - 8 Harvards (0:55), 3x600 (1:29, 1:30, 1:29), 3x400 (0:60, 0:59, 0:58)

Tuesday

8 miles

Wednesday

AM - 4 miles (perimeter of U-M Golf Course)

PM - 6 miles & Strides: 5x100

Thursday

Interval Run: 1000 (2:37), 2x400 (0:60), 1000 (2:37), 2x400 (0:60), 1000 (2:37), 2x400 (0:60), 1000 (2:37)

(2.5 minute recovery between 1000 and 400 & 1.5 minute recovery between 400 intervals)

Friday

AM - 9 miles (6:00/mile)

PM - 4 miles & Strides: 3x100 (in Lafayette, Ind.)

Saturday

Run on river trails in Lafayette, Ind.

Warm-up: 5 miles

Tempo Run: 5 miles (5:30/mile)

Cool-down: 5 miles

Sunday

Run on river trails in Lafayette, Ind.

10 miles (6:00/mile)

--------------------------------0-------------------------

MAY 17th - MAY 23rd

Monday

AM - 6 miles

PM - Warm-up: 3 miles, Strides: 4x100, Cooldown: 3 miles

Tuesday

8 Harvards (0:55), 6x400 (0:62), 2x400 (0:60)

Wednesday

Off

Thursday

AM - 6 miles

PM - Warm-up: 3 miles, Strides: 4x100, Cooldown: 3 miles

Friday

Warm-up: 2 miles

Tempo Run: 3 miles (4:45/mile)

Cooldown: 3 miles

Interval Run: 200 (0:28), 300 (0:42), 400 (0:56), 600 (1:26), 400 (0:57), 300 (0:42)

Saturday

14 miles

Sunday

AM - 2 miles

PM - Warm-up: 4 miles, Strides: 4x100, 2x300

Total Weekly Mileage

70 miles

----------------------------------0------------------------

MAY 24TH - MAY 30TH

Monday

AM - 6 miles

PM - 3 miles & Strides: 4x100

Tuesday

AM - 2 miles

PM - Warm-up: 2.5 miles, Interval Run: 3x400, 600, 5x300, Cool-down: 2.5 miles

Wednesday

Off

Thursday

AM - 6 miles

PM - 4 miles & Strides: 3x150

Friday

AM - 1 mile

PM - Warm-up: 2.5 miles, Interval Run: 200, 1,200 (time trial), 300, 400, 600, Cool-down: 2.5 miles

Saturday

11 miles

Sunday

AM - 6 miles

PM - Warm-up: 3 miles, Strides: 4x150, Cool-down: 1 mile

Total Weekly Mileage

65 miles

----------------------------0--------------------------

MAY 31ST - JUNE 6TH

Monday

AM - 1 mile

PM - 4x400 (w/ 200m recovery), 4x400 (w/ 200m recovery)

Tuesday

Off

Wednesday

AM - 8x200 (at race pace w/ 200m recovery)

PM - Bike: 30 min.

Thursday

AM - 4 miles (in Ann Arbor)

PM - 2 miles (in Oregon)

Friday

AM - 3 miles

PM - 4 miles & Strides: 4x100

Saturday (Race Day)

AM - 1 mile shakeout

Warm-up: 2 miles

1,500-meter run (3rd place/3:36.24)

Cool-down: 2 miles

Sunday

10 miles

Total Weekly Mileage

50 miles

-----------------------------0-----------------------

JUNE 7TH - JUNE 13TH

Monday

6 miles

Tuesday

AM - Warm-up: 2.5 miles; Interval Run: 3x600, 400; Cool-down: 2.5 miles

PM - 2 miles

Wednesday

AM - 2 miles

PM - 2 miles

Thursday

4 miles & Strides: 3x100

Friday (Race Day)

AM - 2-mile shakeout

Warm-up: 3 miles

800-meter 'B' Run (1st place/1:47.38)

Cool-down: 3 miles

Saturday

9.5 miles

Sunday

Warm-up: 2.5 miles

Interval Run: 150, 400, 2x300, 3x200, 60

Cool-down: 4 miles

Total Weekly Mileage

45 miles

-------------------------------0-------------------------

JUNE 21TH - JUNE 27TH

Monday

8 miles

Tuesday

Warm-up: 2.5 miles

Interval Run: 800, 3x200, 3x400

Cool-down: 2.5 miles

Wednesday

8 miles

Thursday

2 miles

Friday

Warm-up: 2 miles

Interval Run: 4x200

Cool-down: 2 miles

Saturday

4 miles

Sunday (Race Day)

AM - 1-mile shakeout

Warm-Up: 2 miles

1,500-meter Run (6th place/3:38.71)

Cool-down: 2 miles

Total Weekly Mileage

42 miles

----------------------------------0---------------------

JUNE 28TH - JULY 4TH

Monday

14 miles

Tuesday

7 miles

Wednesday

Warm-up: 2 miles

Interval Run: 4x200

Cool-down: 2 miles

Thursday

Off

Friday (Race Day)

AM: 2-mile shakeout

Warm-up: 2.5 miles

1,500-meter Run (9th place/3:32.68)

Cool-down: m miles

Saturday

8 miles

Sunday

Off

Total Weekly Mileage

35 miles

------------------------------0-------------------------

JULY 5TH - JULY 11TH

Monday

Off

Tuesday

5 miles

Wednesday

5 miles

Thursday

Warm-up: 2 miles (to Harvard Hill)

4 Harvards (0:53)

2-mile run to track

Interval Run: 800 (1:58), 200 (0:26), 300 (0:40), 200, (0:26), 800 (1:57), 400 (0:58), 400 (0:54), 300 (0:41)

Cool-down: 2 miles

Friday

AM - 4 miles

PM - 11 miles

Saturday

14 miles

Sunday

AM - 1.5-mile shakeout

Warm-up: 2.5 miles

Tempo run: 3 miles (14:10)

Interval run: 4x300 (0:42), 3x300 (0:42)

Cool-down: 2 miles

Total Weekly Mileage

62 miles

-----------------------------0-------------------------

JULY 12TH - JULY 18TH

Monday

Off

Tuesday

AM - 5 miles & Strides: 6x150

PM - 10 miles

Wednesday

AM - 3-mile shakeout

Warm-up: 2 miles (to Harvard Hill)

4 Harvards (0:53)

2-mile run to track

Interval Run: 8x300 (0:40)

Cool-down: 2 miles

Thursday

10 miles

Friday

AM - 5 miles & Strides: 5x150

PM - 8 miles

Saturday

Warm-up: 2.5 miles

Interval Run: 200 (0:26), 1,000 (2:27), 400 (0:58), 6x200 (0:29)

Cool-down: 2.5 miles

Sunday

14 miles

Total Weekly Mileage

75 miles

rekrunner wrote:

I'll send you a short e-mail. It was a few years back, so I didn't expect you to remember.

Thanks for the assessment. Right now, I'm trying to minimize any of my interpretations, except to correct one thing I thought was wrong.

But as I said before, I'm only trying to explore further "exactly what is wrong?" "Khadaffi out of power" said it right "I want to hear his ideas, whether I agree or not.", at least to better understand the issues.

Usually these threads degrade before my questions get answered. I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I think it's gone a couple steps further than I've ever seen it go, and, if my memory is right, I'm still looking forward to at least one more comment on "training individualization".

Yes. This kind of thread do decline and degradesc before everyone can finish the conversation. You see, one post it´s not enough to argue about complex training ideas. I think that training shall be based in simplicity, but training analysis at the light of training methodology is a complex stuff. The idiot, the best they can do is rubbish.

But i need to say one thing. If i remember well, the one that was offended several times on the Lydiard debate without reason, it was me by many Lydiard adepts. Reason of fanatism.

For example. I want to continue and be more specific about my specific training interpretation. But this is just one aspect from many of the Lydiard training that requires deep comment. Let´s see if i´m able to continue.

But now, i´m gonna do the same that mr. Kim, i coach, i train and see other runners.

No one has ever argued that Lydiard invented any of these principles but he did put them together in his own way. Nothing in the schedule you've printed would be out of place in the Lydiard system at its proper time but obviously it would not be something done year round. If Willis did this all the time it would not be anything like what Lydiard people do but there's no way to know from what's here if he did or not or even if he did whether he'll continue doing it all the time in the future.

Rather than talk about "outdated vs. modern", it seems what's coming up here is "constantly specific vs. periodically specific" and the assumption made by some is that constantly specific training is more modern and therefore better. But neither is necessarily true. If you look at training profiles from the 50s you can find people doing year round specific training. And I have personally not seen anything at all that convinces me that training becomes better as it gets more specific. In fact, I'm inclined to think the opposite may well be true.

Perhaps I'm wrong there but it leads me to bring up something rekrunner asked on another thread (I think) which I think is a brilliant point and one which no one answered as I recall. If modern training is so much better why is it that essentially only Africans have benefitted?

That leads to another major problem in trying to evaluate anything that anyone successful is doing now in comparison to what past champions did and that's the matter of PEDs. I don't really know how we can know that today's training is superior and producing the better results or that today's training is comparable or inferior to what was done before but looks better because PEDs have produced mind boggling times.

HRE wrote:

If modern training is so much better why is it that essentially only Africans have benefitted?

Yes, this is what I was getting at above.