Lydiard Imitations

"For that reason, TOP ATHLETES NEVER HAVE TO LOSE WHAT ALREADY THEY HAVE. It's not possible today to have a long period of preparation without ALL the elements of training (including speed and long fast run already in fundamental period). Of course, what can change is the PERCENTAGE we use for every type of training during different periods.

For too long time we had in training the FRIGHT to do something AGAINST the development of some quality. So, 50 years ago, many coaches supposed using speed during the base period could affect the aerobic system, exactly like many coaches of sprinters didn't accept 40' easy continuous run because could affect the speed.

This is a total stupidity. In training, THE ONLY THING CAN LOSE IS WHAT YOU DON'T DO."

I think you have right in most of what you say Renato.

However, what is the reason you state that "TOP ATHLETES NEVER HAVE TO LOOSE ALREADY WHAT THEY HAVE".

Doesnt your athlete also take the break after season? October, no running at all? No speed?

Why is it then so dangerous to do a month or two of pure aerobic running after the break is finished. Saving the stimulus of faster running for later in the preparation.

I am sure both ways are possible and will give good results.

Your point is that more "complex" training earlier in the cycle give more benefit?

Probably you are right about that, but do you agree that the differences are not so big?

Renato, this is one reason I have undertaken to archive some of the past here:

New: Bill Rodgers' 1976 Log | Bill Rodgers' 1975 Log | Rodgers' 73/74 Logs | Spedding Log (leading to 3rd place at '84 Olympic Marathon)

In training, we don't have to take care of the bioenergetic engine only. Synthetically, far from the peak of the season we have to look for AEROBIC RESISTANCE (and we do this using long run not too fast, exactly as Lydiard teached) and, at the same time, for increasing MECHANIC QUALITIES (muscular strength, flexibility, elasticity, reactivity, etc).

So, we have to make a "funnel" where, at the beginning, we have to extremes :

a) RESISTANCE (at the moment general)

b) SPEED (at the moment working on muscular strength).

The evolution of these two extremes is in two directions :

a) RESISTANCE (long run) must be qualified during a period of about 4 months, becoming ENDURANCE (so, when you are able running long, you try to increase the speed for the same duration, in this way increasing the distance too)

b) SPEED must be extended, becoming SPEED ENDURANCE.

All this training evolves during the end of the Fundamental Period, going in the Special Period.

When we approach the competition, about 2 months before, we can speak of SPECIFIC PERIOD. During the Specific Period we work ONLY for extending the ability in lasting at the speed we identified before (for example, 14" every 100m for an athlete looking at 3'30" in 1500m). Faster speed, or a little bit slower speed, are not part of the system, but we can use as stimuli in the two directions.

This is not something very different from Lydiard's system.

However, the big difference comes in what we do AFTER a season. When we look at marathon, for example, the priority is not to start with long run again for a period of Aerobic Base, but is to start with something short and fast, IN ORDER TO RECOVER WHAT WE LOST DURING THE SPECIFIC PERIOD FOR THE PREVIOUS MARATHON.

In other words, WE START TO ENHANCE THE AEROBIC POWER, AND LATER WE EXTEND THIS POWER TO THE MARATHON.

This is a very big difference from the past. Years ago, the system was 1) to increase the volume and 2) to increase the speed. Now, we try 1) to increase the speed and 2) to increase the volume of the speed.

So, it's clear that we don't look anymore to some very high volume of slow run, as for example in the Japanese system (Seko ran 480 km in one week..., and Bordin ran 320 km in one week.... ; Japaneses had two sessions of 100 km called "mentalization", ladies two of 70 km).

Look at Geoffrey Mutai : winter in cross at top level, full marathon in spring at a level of WR, 10 km at his best after one month, 10000m on track at the end of June and July, again full marathon in Autumn, always at max level. Moses Mosop ran the WR of 30 km exactly 45 days after running 2:03:06 in Marathon, and 31 after that performance he was able to run 18 times 1000m on track at 2400m of altitude, with 1'20" recovery, in 2'45" (1st) + 16 times 2'42" + the last in 2'36".

FOR DOING THIS, WE NEVER MUST GO UNDER A HIGH LEVEL OF AEROBIC POWER.

Of course, sometimes we have a break of 2-3 weeks. In that period, athletes don't lose too much of what they already have. But in Lydiard's system, the 2-3 weeks were 4 months, really too much for the athletics of today.

rekrunner wrote:

what made sense to me, is a chart by Stephen Seiler which takes about the time course of training adaptations:

- most of the benefits of VO2max changes happen fairly quickly (e.g. 1-2 years)

- then the main source of benefits come from threshold changes (e.g. 4-5 years)

- thereafter, the main benefits come from improvements in efficiency and economy

I don't know how right it is, but one consequence that seems to come from this is the importance of aerobic development, and things like capillary density, or mitochondrial density diminishes quickly. Once you have dense capillaries, they don't get significantly denser. It also makes Renato's comments about the long run, first being a stimulus, then becoming regenerative runs, and the need for increasing intensity, fit into place.

The VO2 max changes happen both as part of natural maturity and as a response to moderate exercize. By the time a female is 15-18 or a male 18-21, they will have reached their natural maximim aerobic development on just normal moderate activity and good health. When we don't get enough exercize, the heart muscles get smaller and we lose about 20-30% of cardiac output. To regain this, takes just a few weeks and is easily maintained with regular exercize. So the idea of long term changes in aerobic capacity is nonsense, a poplular myth that won't go away.

Capillarisation is a continual process, called vasculogenesis, whereby old inneficient or damaged blood vessels are gradually replaced. So the network of capillaries continues to grow throughout your life, unless inllness prevents this process.

But for athletes, we don't need to worry if our training is giving us enough capillarisation, we only need to maintain good general health and good training and diet.

Changes is "Threshold" and economy and efficiency are all basically the same thing. Once you have your normal aerobic development further development are due to improvements in neuromuscular coordination, which is a general term for our basic skills of specific power and endurance. As we all know, it is the endurance factor of running which takes years to develop, but what is rarely pointed out by coaches and physiologists is that the ability to maintain a specific pace for longer and longer is dependent on improvement in neural processes, which can be generally refered to as skill and concentration.

Yes, technique and stride patterns apply equally to middle and long distance running, but they are less obvious than the example of the 110m hurdler.

For improvement is stride rate/stride length, and subsequent performance improvments, I think it is realistic to expect that the ratio is about 25% stride rate, 75% stride rate, because of the laws of physics as applied to biomechanics. It's all about ground force reaction, reducing the time the foot is in contact with the ground.

The problem is how to improve or maitain power whilst at the same time improving endurance. I think that training should be approached with patience, so that you let the pace come to you rather than forcing the pace, which causes early fatigue.

The 800 meters event is a very strage race. Sometimes in a Championship, you never know who will win. Look at the race in Berlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27rIRqnpLqA

Did Mulaudzi win because he wanted it the most? Because it was very close between six or seven runners in the last few meters.

Regarding training for speed endurance, yes I think you do have to conciously choose a longer stride and learn to use it for longer and longer periods without as you say: pushing the envelope all the time to make performance gains. It takes a lot of confidence to have an easy week, when you need it, or to stop a session when it is not going smootly and try again the next day.

A precise definition of VO2 max?

VO2 max or aerobic capacity or maximum oxygen uptake, is the maxium amount of oxygen that your body can process per unit of time. It can be measured as an absolute value in liters per minute, or as a value relative to weight as liters per minute per kilogram. The absloute value being the true measure of improvment or decline, and the relative value being the competitive measurement for runners becuase this is a sport that requires low body fat levels, as opposed to swimming for example, where very thin is not the ideal.

VO2 max is affected by altitude to the degree that a 25% reduction in available oxgen at around 8000 feet gives a well acclimatized runner a reduction of about 15% V02 max (Daniels) So those Kenyans and Ethiopians are doing all that awesome training with a lot less oxygen, but only a slightly slower pace, and on dirt roads too. That's why they are so good, because they train much harder than the rest of the World, and there are thousands of them willing to put in the work.

One other point before I go, and I might be gone a few days; do you think that visualization is important? Some people say that it's nonsense, but many elites think it is essential to focus the mind on the task in hand, so that you have a greater awareness of how to run the race and what to expect.

Recent research shows that when we think about a task, the part of the brain associated with that movement, becomes activated int the same way as when doing that movement, giving the visualisation theory some backing.

I find it works for me anyway.

Renato Canova wrote:

For that reason, TOP ATHLETES NEVER HAVE TO LOSE WHAT ALREADY THEY HAVE. It's not possible today to have a long period of preparation without ALL the elements of training (including speed and long fast run already in fundamental period). Of course, what can change is the PERCENTAGE we use for every type of training during different periods.

For too long time we had in training the FRIGHT to do something AGAINST the development of some quality. So, 50 years ago, many coaches supposed using speed during the base period could affect the aerobic system, exactly like many coaches of sprinters didn't accept 40' easy continuous run because could affect the speed.

This is a total stupidity. In training, THE ONLY THING CAN LOSE IS WHAT YOU DON'T DO.

And, looking at the current results, we don't think the new methodology can be so bad.

You may or may not have a legitimate criticism of Lydiard's sytem here. But you certainly don't have a MODERN criticism. This was the primary objection to Lydiard's sytem from the beginning. He certainly showed that it wasn't a valid criticism in his time.

Your results for the marathon, and also other distances, speak for themself. Obviously you have a very good system,.

Still i have to disagree about the idea of loosing qualities.

A fast runner doesnt become slow after 4 months in pure aerobic direction. Maybe it takes some weeks, or months, but then he will regain the same quality, but is now more strong having a bigger engine.

This year Bekele, after injury, very quickly returned to a high level.

Lydiard had maybe the best example himself, showing everyone that Snell, even after 3 months of "marathon traing", of course not really training for marathon, after 2months of hills and intervals could do 1.44 on grass.

Clearly he didnt loose many qualities.

Doesnt mean the Lydiard system is better, but it shows that you do not need to focus on every element of training all year.

HRE wrote:

We go down this road all the time. I see loads of Lydiard in what you say you do. You think you've gotten beyond Lydiard. You're not going to change your thinking and I'm not likely to change mine.

I've asid here before that I think the marathon might have been Arthur's weakest event in terms of his coaching. I'd give Bill Squires or Nakamura that title. I'd give it to you if you got a number of Italians, or any other westerners for that matetr, under 2:10 or so. Squires' guys were beating Kenyans on occasion but it's a different world now. I'll buy into this idea that training today is an improvement over what was done 40-50 years ago when we see it work for everyone and not just Africans.

Well here is the most recent data for HRE and Canova to chew on regarding this subject. Here are the results of the highly revered "Modern, post Lydiard" Dr James Li who coaches at the University of Arizona with a student population of 40,000 and also coaches Bernard Lagat.

Here is how his method worked on a Kenyan:

Mens 8k Back to top Bib# Name Yr School Time Pace Pts 1 15 Lalang, Lawi Arizona 22:37.00 4:33 24 21

Here is how his method worked on Americans:

Zacharias, Patrick Arizona 23:55.00 4:49 47 13 Bierig, Kenji Arizona 24:38.00 4:58 69 18 Ramirez, Noe Arizona 25:57.00 5:14 72 16 Macaluso, Sam Arizona 26:14.00 5:17 74 19 Souza, Dylan Arizona 27:04.00 5:27

Note: 7th man dropped about but is a mid 27s runner

Dr Li's team finished in last place.

How can you be one of the best Modern/post Lydiard coaches in the world at school of 40000 and your 5th runner can't break 26 and your 6-7 can't break 27 and this on a lightening fast course?

Wetcoast wrote:

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.

Tricky once again my friend.

Let me figure out. Renato on one post reply directly to HRE writes "don´t talk about Lydiard" and for that sentence you think that he insults the american 2 american coaches and 2 of them precisely !

What a silly conclusion ! Are you out of your mind ? How can you extrapolate what you did with Lydiard sentence.

Please, confess...You...the humble man of of the sentences "Lydiard the world´s best coach" "Lydiard the maker of champions" you got in trouble when Renato posts what he posts about training and this is the true reason of your reaction and your comment of "insulting". Please confess...

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.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it![/quote]

I don´t understand what you say because since i remember I never did an interview to you.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

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.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

I don´t understand what you say because since i remember I never did an interview to you.[/quote]

Maybe this will help you remember:

I almost always defer to Nobby when Lydiard is the topic. One problem here would be what we mean by 0% effort. I'm not sure thee is such a thing given that getting out of a comfy chair to head for the toilet can seem a bit of an effort and I don't think running, no matter how easy, can ever not require some effort. Otherwise you'd be able to run all the time and never need to stop.

One thing that has changed radically since Arthur was putting all of this together is that people now speak in a much more "scientific" language so saying that 1/4 effort is the point where it becomes effortful will certainly get you hammered by people who keep a pile of physio books next to their bed. I think that whatever you do to measure this you have to relate it to the distance you're going to run so half effort for a mile is different than half effort for the marathon.

It's not something I've pondered a great deal. I find that "very easy," "moderately easy," "moderate," and "fairly hard" is a useful way of thinking about it.

Yes i did that one interview, but where is the part of my answers i say that "i don´t know everything about Lydiard" ro something similar ? I don´t see that my sentence.

Besides that Kershall as previous condition wanted that i didn´t talk about Lydiard what i did accept, and that it´s true. I said to him that as long as he didn´t ask me about Lydiard i got no reason at all to talk about Lydiard training. But where the interview was edit, i knew that what he did was tricky becuas he did comment on my answers and my training with the lydiard training. Very tricky by a journalist. But as i said earlier it really doesn´t matter what he did since he did respect my own answers totally, for what i thank him.

I´m not innocent, i´m sincere but i´m not innocent, he wanted that i will fall down in on a trap, because earlier that my interview i was allowed by John Hadd that Mr. Kershall tried to do the same trap with him, he just only considers the interest of interview John with the condition that John didn´t talk about Lydiard. What Mr. Kershall was afraid of if John basically did Lydiard training ?

This what i say it´documented on emails and i can prove !

But about the silly comment that i don´t know everything about Lydiard. How could i say it if i promise and i did respect that on the interview i will not talk about Lydiard.

However i confirm. I don´t know everything about Lydiard, but anyone else does. Let me insist once again. What i say about Lydiard it´s documented, i don´t do as many they do while said that Lydiard talk with them in private. Private talk can´t be admited basis of debate what Lydiard said in private.

When i ask them to prove where is write that Lydiard does training individualisation, ther´s nothing documented, nothing public to prove that he did, so he didn´t.

Antonio,

I have every email message that you and I exchanged. I can post it up here anytime. You said in at least two different ways of not knowing as much about Lydiard as us (meaning Lydiardists as you call us) and another similar way like that, plus you just said so in your own post. I will forward you the emails back to you, that you sent to me, if you like.

In the interview that you and I conducted, I found that your training method does have very strong similarities to Lydiard and other Lydiard-like programs. I said so, so that the reader can read the interview and decide for themselves where the similarities are.

By the way, my name is not "Kershall". Regardless, we did not talk about Lydiard and that was perfectly fine. The interview was all about you, I asked you about your introduction to running, about your coaching, family etc. It was a nice amicable interview. THAT does not take away from what I see as a good training program that is similar to Lydiard (the one you denounce all the time).

Renato in this thread continues to mention that Lydiard had long slow running only, even after he is told, very plainly that that is not correct.

I am not sure I understand either of you. On the one hand both of you say you do not accept the method on the other hand some of your training principals are the same and yet in addition to that, you two are making statements about Lydiard that are incorrect, even after being corrected.

This isn't an argument about Lydiard at all. It is about you being absolutely stubborn for no good reason whatsoever.

I have no problem communicating with you one-on-one, you seem to be a real nice guy. But publicly you are very different.

Here is another instance of the same sort of thing I do not understand. Hadd or Walsh at one time, probably before you knew him has said that he basically coaches according to the Lydiard method. A perfectly nice guy, who seems reasonable put up Walsh's (Hadd) training program on another site. In several ways it was very easy to show that the method has strong similarities to Lydiard. Yet I was not in so many words told to keep the discussion centred on Hadd. Wow, talk about not being open, and yet here, we have to deal with this? COME ON!

I am at a complete loss to explain this bizarre phenomenon whereby people pretend to disagree with the Lydiard method, when they know nothing about the method or at least USE the very principles they disagree with.

Ever here this: "truth is stranger than fiction"?

Now here I will take the normal road or the polite way or at least be honest. I think the training method you espouse to be a very good one, as with Walsh's. I think they are great. Why???? Because they resemble Lydiard's. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

Oh by the way, I understand you have claimed to have followed the Igloi method, am I correct? If Lydiard is dated, well then so is Igloi - he was around about the same time.

Weird.

All of that aside, how can you do an interview and not remember? Do you do that many?

Hi Jon,For anyone interested in a more accurate descriptions of what I summarized, the original text is no longer where I found it, but a copy can still be found here:http://vivaa.ca/download/doc_download/41-the-time-course-of-training-adaptations.html

I know this was my question too, in previous threads, and I think it's certainly a complex combination of reasons. But here's a thought: If anyone can coach Kenyans, why not get a Lydiard coach to train a group and see what happens?I think it's also interesting to look at Kenyans in the NCAA meets, or even high schools, since (presumably) they are being trained like their American teammates. You can see there is still a pattern of domination.

HRE wrote:

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 agree, but the problem runs a tad deeper. See when you coach based on similar/same or related methodology or principles as Lydiard did, you are already accomplishing that. Which is what they do. There are only so many ways to train.

Give those guys some mix-race guys living a North American/European lifestyle and give another equal coach some raw 'n hungry Kenyans and the latter smokes the former.

They pick low-haning fruit and look good doing it. Then announce they have a new, exclusive method that they can't share and meanwhile denouncing all others. Sounds like a scam.